« Underground classical music | Main | The productivity performance of universities »
What is so great about social democracy anyway?
Andrew Smith, a loyal MR reader, writes:
You said in one of your recent MR posts that although you did not find the European model sustainable over the long run, frequent trips to Europe revealed much in the model that delighted you. I believe you singled out Stockholm...as being a particularly vivid illustration of all that social democracy could do right.
I, too, am a free-market enthusiast who is delighted by European cities, but when I think carefully about what delights me I find that it is less anything developed since World War II and more the remnants of the Europe that existed before the First World War.
First, there is the dense urban development that created incredible communities from the rise of Venice in the Middle Ages to the Paris that Haussmann created in the mid-19th century. I cannot think of a single community built mostly after World War I that has much charm and those built mostly after WWII -- like the tower communities that ring Paris -- are downright depressing, worse than any of the strip malls and sprawl American capitalism has produced since the war.
The regional cuisines, the sidewalk cafes, the specialty merchants, the distinctive aspects of each area's art and music -- it all came about before WWI and now lingers as a slowly fading twilight of Europe's high noon. (True, farm subsidies and merchant regulations do help maintain the beautiful countryside and the small shops, but I think Europeans have enough passion for local that both things would mostly survive in a free market.)
What part of the Europe that you enjoy so much owes its existence to social democracy? Just curious.
Excellent points. My answer is twofold. First, social democracy has kept Europe, its high standard of living, and its historical wonders, more or less intact. Through much of 1914-194? this outcome was by no means obvious. I am willing, at times, to resort to crude historicism.
Second, European social democracy offers its citizens the most wonderful vacations elsewhere. I just don't see how most Americans tolerate only two weeks' vacation.
(Mind you, I am not lazy; my vacations, done my way, are more strenuous than any work day. In fact I consider a work day my source of relaxatoin. If I have to relax, at least I want to be getting lots done.)
As an aside, I do find contemporary Finland visually attractive, and I believe Lille would please me also, from the photos I have seen.
In any case, Smith's points should cause us to downgrade that "aesthetic halo of achievement" which social democracy has around many of our heads.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 11, 2006 at 05:09 AM in History | Permalink
Comments
The beautiful countryside is also the product of zoning regulation. It may not be due to social democracy, but is incompatible with free markets. You can find beautiful countryside in the US, but you have to go far from the population centers to do so.
Posted by: joan at Nov 11, 2006 9:38:59 AM
You can find beautiful countryside in the US, but you have to go far from the population centers to do so.
Hear that? Fairfax County is not a population center. (Since parts of Loudoun County have beautiful countryside and aren't far away.)
I just don't see how most Americans tolerate only two weeks' vacation.
My company allows people to "buy" an extra week vacation, paying for it by precisely reducing their salary. I don't know that anyone takes them up on it. (Though we certainly get more than two weeks vacation.)
Posted by: John Thacker at Nov 11, 2006 10:35:24 AM
True, farm subsidies and merchant regulations do help maintain the beautiful countryside and the small shops, but I think Europeans have enough passion for local that both things would mostly survive in a free market.
Mr. Smith is highlighting the flaw in his own argument here. He seems to be saying that, yes, regulation has helped maintain these things, but then asserts, without much support, that it really isn't necessary.
I suspect he's wrong about that. Isn't it at least plausible that zoning rules, architectural requirements, and various sorts of restrictions on building have helped to preserve the beauty of European cities?
And by the way, were these cities created by laissez-faire policies? Wasn't "the Paris that Haussmann created in the mid-19th century" heavily controlled and financed by government? So perhaps it was not social democracy, but neither was it free-wheeling capitalism.
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Nov 11, 2006 11:37:14 AM
I would buy loads of vacation if I were allowed to. I don't know if I could stop!
Posted by: Noumenon at Nov 11, 2006 11:53:12 AM
I think it is fair to say that the "charm" factor of most American cities is found in its pre-WW2 architecture too. And the "quaintness" of classic American open markets is cultivated here too since suburban, auto friendly, shopping sprawl has eroded the vitality of many urban centers that developed their pedestrian friendliness pre-automobile. And we too have spirit-crushing concrete towers in less-central areas that attempt to serve the US's needs for affordable housing. So is free-market capitalism with highly restrictive access to vacation time, sick time (for many workers), and healthcare responsible for that modernist gloom here? Or did Europe's benefits from social democracy reduce its risk factors as a tinderbox for social inquality that fueled two World Wars a generation apart? The ancient and medieval architecture of Europe could have been more vastly demolished if the cycle of armed conflict had persisted there, leaving little charm for American tourists to admire.
Posted by: M at Nov 11, 2006 12:21:01 PM
Isn't it at least plausible that zoning rules, architectural requirements, and various sorts of restrictions on building have helped to preserve the beauty of European cities?
But the cities, people seem to be accepting, were (if not entirely) in large part built without zoning rules and architectural requirements and turned out beautiful. What is it about the 20th century that would make the results of economic freedom any different?
I think that at least some of the ugliness of the 20th century is itself a product of higher levels of state involvement. Government-subsidized housing is famous for being an eyesore. Government-subsidized urban renewal is famous for often being a disastrous failure.
Wasn't "the Paris that Haussmann created in the mid-19th century" heavily controlled and financed by government?
Haussmann partially reshaped Paris but didn't create it. Not all cities are reshaped with the heavy hand that Haussmann applied to Paris. If Paris is the only beautiful city in Europe, then let's give Haussmann some credit. But if there are other beautiful cities in Europe, then we can reasonably ask whether Paris without Haussmann would not have also been beautiful.
Posted by: Constant at Nov 11, 2006 12:51:18 PM
And we too have spirit-crushing concrete towers in less-central areas that attempt to serve the US's needs for affordable housing.
Government housing projects. You can blame this eyesore on government, not on capitalism.
So is free-market capitalism with highly restrictive access to vacation time
As has been mentioned, you can get more vacation if you're willing to earn correspondingly less. Most Americans are not. That is a choice, not a restriction.
social inquality that fueled two World Wars a generation apart
I do not believe that it was social inequality that sparked the first world war. As for the second, it was started by Hitler, who gained power through a combination of democracy and coup, and who I would not say was himself primarily motivated by social inequality. As for the reasons Hitler's party got a lot of votes, I don't think it was obvious to those who voted for him that he was going to invade his neighbors and start a second world war, so even if a plurality people voted for him because of social inequality (which itself is not obvious), they might easily have voted for someone who would not go on to start the second world war.
Posted by: Constant at Nov 11, 2006 1:07:01 PM
Were pre-WWI cities any more beautiful than those built now? It seems like there is a survivorship bias in effect. Only those buildings that were the best built, most costly, and most aesthetic would survive to the present. The tenements and shacks would've been bulldozed.
Posted by: Christopher Rasch at Nov 11, 2006 1:18:34 PM
These are wonderful places to visit. Basing an opinion of an areas quality of life simply based on a vacation experience has massive potential for observer bias.
I am not so sure these areas would be as wonderful to live in and try and support yourself and a family.
Posted by: TJIT at Nov 11, 2006 1:40:52 PM
Andrew is right - the Europe one sees is not a reflection of its political philosophy. From what I read (and see in the TV) eastern europe has also retained much of its charm under a communist rule.
But what amazes me most is that they have been able to leverage the cities without letting them go. Inner cities in US have and are degenerating, though some are being wonderfully renewed (Baltimore).
This could be a reflection of supply - US has lot more land that they can leverage, Europe relatively less. The supply in some cases is artificially constrained: Germany, I was told by my german hosts, and as joan pointed out to zoning reguations.
But developing countries (India) tend to like the European model that leverages its past. Well meant regulations bring assorted set of rules - that ends up regulating growth.
Posted by: Nagraj at Nov 11, 2006 2:38:00 PM
Constant,
There probably were not the types of zoning rules we have today. Still, as in Paris, there probably was a heavy governmental hand on urban design and architecture. Not a social democratic hand, perhaps, but an entirely visible one nonetheless.
Government housing projects. You can blame this eyesore on government, not on capitalism.
True enough. But we have plenty of privately built ugly or sterile buildings of all types. While there is some incentive to put up attractive buildings - prestige, public relations, etc. - I don't think the payoffs are sufficient to make them common. Is Houston, so proud of its lack of zoning, an architectural gem?
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Nov 11, 2006 2:44:33 PM
Oops. The second paragraph was a quote. The third was mine. Sorry.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 11, 2006 2:47:02 PM
Europe is wonderful to visit - so long as you have lots of money (which you get by working hard in a free market system) and are lucky enougn to go when there aren't any strikes. It is not correspondingly wonderful to live there - you'll soon discover that you can't afford any of the luxuries that you enjoy when you only vacation there, and you have to constantly put up with strikes and lack of access to things taken for granted in free marketplaces (such as transportation, air conditioning, large living areas, choice at the stores, choice among stores, stores that are open when you need them, modern appliances, etc).
There is also an amazing beauty in the modern city -- the NY skyline, particularly before it was attacked -- is among the most beautiful sights on Earth.
Oh, and we also have natural beauty (Yellowstone, Grand Canyon) and so forth that would almost certainly still exist were it not for government intervention -- we don't have so much pre-WWI architecture, but we are a young country, we do not have castles and cathedrals from 1100, that isn't the fault of capitalism.
Posted by: liberty at Nov 11, 2006 2:57:10 PM
In finance and law it is exceedingly difficult to purchase more vacation time by earning less. There is an expectation of 60+ hour work weeks with two weeks of vacation time and an expectation that these will not be used. In the united states you can elect to earn less and work less by working in education or certain fields but it is next to impossible to lead a balanced life in broad swaths of the working market place regardless of the level of monetary compensation you are willing to forgo. People have very different preferences for leisure time, I admit, but leisure preference is sufficiently strong to motivate people to choose entirely different lines of work. I would not be teaching if I could work 40 hours a week 48 weeks a year as an attorney.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Nov 11, 2006 4:13:04 PM
I wonder whether you would see the amazingly ugly automobile centered horizontal development if roads were privatized.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Nov 11, 2006 4:16:07 PM
I'm only going to ask a question, because I really don't know this answer.
The New York Times and other liberal publications have pointed out that France and America have the same employment rates, i.e. the percentage of people out of the total 18-65 population who are working. However, France does have a much higher unemployment rate any way you look at it, pointing to a much lower work force participation rate in America.
So, could many of those people not participating in the work force be retired and can retirement be thought of as a form of compensation? That lawyer working their butt off could decide to retire early or take some extended time off. Could the average worker in America have as much leisure time as a French worker if you consider vacation taken over the entire lifetime of the each worker?
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 11, 2006 4:38:44 PM
As I always point out to every upper middle class white American who talks about how great Sweden, Finland, etc are, those countries are less ethnically diverse than any state in the US. If the US was a country of 92% Anglo-Saxon and 5% Irish, then the US would have the same level of diversity as Finland.
If you want to talk about bad inner cities, suburban sprawl, and lack of community in the US, you have to talk about ethnic diversity and its effects.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Nov 11, 2006 8:52:42 PM
"The New York Times and other liberal publications have pointed out that France and America have the same employment rates, i.e. the percentage of people out of the total 18-65 population who are working."
Its been a while since I looked at the data for the long term trends of employment, but as I remember it we tend to have a higher overall employment than France as percent of 18-64, though not quite as much higher as you might expect. I think retirement does play a part - we work hard, play hard and retire well. But we also have higher labor force particpication in a few ways - for one we have fewer involuntary part-time workers (there is data on that at the OECD I think) and for 2005, total employment out of total population (which may not be just 18-64) was 68.14% in France and 80.64% in the US according to the OECD data I just looked at. If I remember correctly its usually in the late 70s (78% or so) in the US and in the early to mid 70s in much of Europe. Some places get it higher (Sweden?) but lose out on the hours, etc.
Posted by: liberty at Nov 11, 2006 9:28:22 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We tend to be attracted to that which is different or exotic. Europe's got a lot more old stuff than America, so to Americans, Europe possesses more that is "rare" or "dear" to American eyes. To Yanks, this raises the beauty factor of European cities.
I personally think San Francisco is at least in the same league, from the standpoint of sheer aesthetic beauty, as, say, a Venice or a Paris. I'd say the same thing of Manhattan (although Gotham's beauty is not mostly the "charming" kind but the "thrilling" and "dramatic" kind). Large parts of D.C., Boston, Seattle, Portland, Chicago and Los Angeles are also beautiful.
Posted by: Jasper at Nov 11, 2006 9:42:32 PM
If you want to talk about bad inner cities, suburban sprawl, and lack of community in the US, you have to talk about ethnic diversity and its effects.
I think the effects of "ethnic diversity" are largely beneficial to US urban areas. The quality of life has improved substantially -- sometimes dramatically -- in many older US urban cores that were reeling from decay 30 years ago. Their improvement largely coincides with a big jump in their immigrant populations, and in the diversity of the ethnic backgrounds of their residents.
Posted by: Jasper at Nov 11, 2006 9:48:41 PM
Traveling is expensive. My theory is that Europeans have fewer kids because their culture is more traveling-obsessed. Also, traveling is hard to do if you have lots of kids. I think that reducing vacations in Europe would lead to more kids being born.
Posted by: Paul N at Nov 11, 2006 9:49:35 PM
One of the main reasons so many American cities look like crap and aren't memorable to visit is that they were built and designed primarily for cars, not for people. Euro cities? You can walk around 'em. They have neighborhoods, small stores, people actually living there.
Now, is that a free market or social-democracy thing, the way we've optimized so many of our cities for cars? The Interstate Highway System was federally financed, and was said to be the biggest engineering project in all history up to that point. That wasn't free market! But Americans like cars. That would seem to be free market. So it's your choice.
As for some of the other reasons ... Well, read Tom Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House." It's a little exaggerrated for satirical effect, but it's remarkably accurate in its picture of Euro intellectuals coming to America, capturing the prestige universities (and thus the bureaucrats and biz and gov elites), and inflicting tons of horrendous Modernism on our lives.
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Nov 12, 2006 12:41:17 AM
Iceland is an interesting counter example.
I found Reykjavic to be ugly, by conventional architectural aesthetics - but vibrant, charming and memorable - as indeed is Icelandic culture generally. So, in the end, I like to look at pictures of the place to remind me of it, as I would of my favourite cities (small) such as York, Berne, Frieburg or Girona.
What I took away from this was that the aesthetic aspect of architecture may be less important than I thought; and that there are other ways of maing a good living environment which is not just functional but has depth and meaning.
My guess is that Iceland has such a powerful litarary imaginative and historical culture that this somehow displaces the visual aesthetic. People see-through the scruffy modern buildings to the myths beneath.
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Nov 12, 2006 2:07:08 AM
superdestroyer,
I would recommend you stop making that particular argument since Sweden has the same proportion of foreign born residents as does the US. The difference is that they are not largely immigrants, who love their new country and hope with energy and verve to build a new life. Rather, they are refugees from war zones who never heard of Sweden, are often psychologically damaged and would very much rather be somewhere else.
That makes Sweden's successes only more impressive.
Posted by: finnsense at Nov 12, 2006 2:26:47 AM
Finnsense,
And what percentage of Sweden are native born non-ethnic swedes?
The reason that many middle class Americans are forced into long commute so live in the bland suburbs is that they are trying to get away from the blacks and hispanics that dominate inner cities. The white middle class cannot afford the expensive condo, expensive neighborhoods, and private schools that the rich use to get away from blacks, hispanics, and immigrants. Thus, they move into the suburbs.
My Sweden is fun to walk around it because they do not have to worry about the high crime rates that the US has. Remember, driing in your car is much safer than walking around in most parts of DC, NYC, Philly, LA, etc.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Nov 12, 2006 5:33:20 AM
