Perhaps Sweden can provide us with important clues regarding the policies and principles that need to serve as guidelines for healthy golalization.

---

Introduction: the need for a third way

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged the triumphant winner of the arms race. Of course the leaders of the Western World always knew that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Soviet economic and political system. It was as though it suffered from an advanced cardiovascular disease that sooner or later was bound to lead to its death. And that proved to be the case. The problem is that the United States took the demise of the Soviet system to be it’s own bill of health. The thinking was something like this: “If you have heart problems, I must be healthy.” The logic was simple...and faulty.

Whatever one may think about it, a new world order has emerged, based on US military ascendancy and the power of multi-national corporations. Most people gave a sigh of relief when we were able to put the dangerous arms race between the US and Russia behind us, and in general people in Eastern Europe were happy to be out from under the Soviet yolk. But the shadow side of the new world order is looming ever larger in the minds of thinking people around the world. This new system of power appears to undercut the possibility of a democracy of nations establishing an effective rule of law in the world. It widens the gap between the rich and the poor in a most dangerous manner. It permits the exploitation of the weak and the impoverished by the already excessively rich. It promotes massive ecological damage. It is grounded in the illusion that unlimited growth is possible in a finite system. The new order may quite literally be a fatal condition for the whole of humanity. It can be thought of as a cancer. When one pauses to reflect, it is far from clear that this cancer is a great improvement over the heart disease that led to the collapse of the Soviet system. As they recognize that a political/economic disease of global proportions is a life threatening condition for the earth, people in increasing numbers are taking to the streets to protest the ruthless policies of the World Bank and the IMF, and the cruel, reckless and arrogant military interventions of the United States.

If we had only the choice between the kind of totalitarian socialism exemplified by the repressive and ruthless Stalinist regime in Russia and the coalition of principalities and powers that now rules the world, this would be would be ample cause for despair. So it is natural to ask whether there might be a third way.

The Swedish Experiment

While the United States and Russia engaged in a cold war that threatened the existence of the world, Sweden quietly experimented with a model of social organization that was significantly different than that found either in the United States or the Soviet Union. In his book, “Social Policy and Welfare State in Sweden,” Sven Olsen describes it as “one of the most important test cases on the globe.” He goes on to say that “viewed by friendly observers..., Sweden stands as a pragmatic compromise between totalitarian socialism and unvarnished capitalism.” (Olsen. 1990, pg. 36) The social critic Marquis Childs aptly dubbed this experiment “the middle way.” I would suggest that as we look for a model for the future organization of a globalized community, we have much to learn from the Swedish experiment.

In 1928 Per Albin Hansson, the leader of the Social Democratic party in Sweden gave a speech in parliament that outlined the basic vision that guided the development of the now famous welfare state. He compared a well functioning society to a good home (Heclo and Henric. 1987, pg. 157):

In a good home there prevails equality, thoughtfulness, cooperation, helpfulness. As applied to the larger peoples’ and citizens’ home this implies a breaking down of all social and economic barriers which now divide citizens between the privileged and the forgotten, their rulers and the dependent, the rich and poor, the satiated and the utterly destitute, the plunderers and the plundered.”

As Hugh Heclo and Henrik Madsen say in Policy and Politics in Sweden: Principled Pragmatism, “The concept of a people’s home touched a deep chord in a country that was still close to its rural past and in many ways yearning for the closeness of village communities.” (Heclo and Madison. 1987, pg. 158) The Social Democrats became the dominant political force in Sweden in 1932 and have largely controlled the economic and social policies in Sweden since then. This gave them the opportunity to find ways to implement in the hard financial, social and physical realities of life those high principles that Hannsen spoke of in his speech to the parliament. By 1960 most of the elements that constitute the welfare state were in place. Even during the few years when coalitions of opposition parities succeeded in gaining the dominant position in the government they did not dare attempt to dismantle the policies that made Sweden a “people’s home.”

Sweden as a “peoples home” is a complex and in some ways paradoxical reality that is hard to characterize simply. But perhaps by highlighting some of the characteristics of the Swedish experiment, a reasonably accurate picture of what developed can be painted:

A real balance between the power of labor and the power of the owners and managers of business : Sweden is not a socialist nation in the sense of having nationalizing the major industries in the country. The market was preserved, with 90% of the industrial output created by privately owned firms. But from the beginning labor was strong. The Social Democrats were kept in power by the labor unions, and the elected officials made sure that unions were always in a strong bargaining position and that the needs of the workers were protected both by contracts with business and by legislation.

A strong mandatory retirement program. In Sweden’s program, workers are assured that they will be able to continue to enjoy a standard of living when they reach retirement age that will be close to what they had while they were working. The major portion of the funding for this program comes from payments made by the worker’s employers.

A large public sector that provides for the educational health and welfare needs of everybody at little or no cost to the recipients of the services. This system provides universal rather than a means-testing access to the benefits. Sweden has one of the largest public sectors in the world, with about 61% of the GDP being generated in the public sphere. A commitment to seeing that all people have access to adequate housing. This commitment focused on the building of a large amount of housing, on providing rent subsidy and loan programs so that people could gain access to adequate housing, and on trying to increase equity with regard to the quality of the housing.

A very strong commitment to a low unemployment rate. This commitment includes a willingness to provide jobs in the public sector to insure a high employment rate when necessary.

A high and strongly progressive income tax to support the public sector and to provide for a continuing redistribution of wealth in the direction of equalization. One interesting aspect of this has been Sweden’s care not to have such high corporate taxes that capital investments would be discouraged.

A strong commitment to preserving the civil liberties of all citizens.

Official public support, including grants, of a system of newspapers and mass media that will insure the expression of a diversity of views.

A policy of neutrality with regard to most world conflicts and a commitment to finding political rather than military solutions to problems. For example, Sweden did not join either side during either of the world wars, and did not align itself either with Russia or the U.S. during the cold war.

An ongoing commitment to providing aid and encouragement to the less powerful countries and to those that are in the process of economic development. Sweden commits 1% of it’s budget to these purposes and has remained faithful to this commitment even during times when it was itself in crisis.

What can be said, then, of the outcome of following these policies and commitments? Even conservative sources that are generally critical of countries that dedicate themselves to providing for the welfare of their citizens through a large public sector have to admit that the results have been impressive. The web site, Nation-Master.com concludes that “aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits.” In a study sponsored by the Brookings Institute, Alice Rivlin concludes that despite the large public sector and a strong commitment to wage equalization and high employment, the investigators found “no evidence that Sweden cannot sustain domestic growth and international competitiveness if the economy is managed well.” (Bosworth and Rivlin. 1987. pg. 19). She goes on to observe that “the Swedish experience does not support the claims of those who believe that a large public sector and high tax rates necessarily lead to rigidities and stultification of the private economy.” (Bosworth and Rivlin. 1987. pg. 21)

According to expert testimony and the test of time, the Swedish system works well from a purely economic perspective. What can be said about how it works from a humanistic point of view? Again we are interested in hard data, not idle speculation. So we turn to some of the more reliable indicators of the ability of a society to provided for the well being of its people. We begin with health indicators. We learn that Sweden’s under five mortality rate, at 3.44 per 1000, is the lowest in the world. Five other countries have under five infant mortality rates lower than 4.0. They are Iceland, Singapore, Finland, Japan and Norway. The specific arrangements in these five countries varies somewhat. Norway’s system is extremely close to Sweden’s. Finland’s is similar. The situations in Iceland, Singapore and Japan are more complex, but without exception the six countries in the world who have under-five infant mortality rates below 4.0/1000 commit significant funds to health-care from a well developed public sector in their economies, and provide hospital care and other health services to their citizens at little or no cost. Sweden’s life expectancy at birth is 80 years, and on all other health indicators Sweden scores among the highest in the world. (Health statistics above are from Nation.com).

On indicators of social health Sweden does equally well. It’s child poverty level, at 2.6% is the lowest in the world, and compares with 22.4% for the United States. (Nation.com) On indicators of education Sweden is once again with the highest ranking countries. 100% of its children attend public school, and there is virtually no adult illiteracy. The percentage of people in Sweden pursuing higher education is one of the highest in the world.

One of the more interesting indicators to be found in UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children has to do with the percent of household incomes that fall to the upper 20% and the lowest 40% of the population. This gives a rough indication of the gap between the rich and the poor. As Sweden has been very concerned with equality this is an important indication of it’s success. Although many of the planners in Sweden wish they were able to do better, the comparison of Sweden and the US is interesting. In Sweden the bottom 40 % of the population has 24 % of the nation’s household income at it’s disposal, while in the US the bottom 40 % has only 16 % of the nation’s household income. The upper 20% of the population in the U.S. Consumes 46 % of the available household income while in Sweden this figure is at 35 % .

People are naturally suspicious of untried theories. New social experiments, based on untested ideas, do not always turn out in reality as the visionaries envisioned. As T.S. Eliot says, “Between the conception and the reality falls a shadow.” Therefore, when we search for a model for a third way, it is only prudent to ask whether real life experiments exist that show what the model actually might look like in reality. To what extent does it achieve what it sets out to do? What are the costs and the draw-backs of the model? Does one encounter unforeseen outcomes, either good or bad, from implementing the model.

Sweden is a democracy with an excellent record in human rights. It has shown itself to be deeply committed to a free press, to equality, to justice and to peace. By all objective standards it provides for the basic health, educational and material needs of it’s citizens far better than most other countries in the world. It has committed itself to the vision of a “people’s home,” and it has brought that vision to fruition in the recalcitrant and unforgiving realities of actual life. It would therefore seem reasonable to look at Sweden as a microcosm of what might some day become a reality in the macrocosm of the global village. Perhaps the earth can still become a “people’s home.”

The Debit Side

It seems dubious that Sweden’s welfare system creates special economic problems for the country. As Gunner Heckscher summarizes the situation (Heckscher. 1984, pg. 89), “in many respects, the economic problems facing Scandinavian countries today are the same as those of most other industrialized countries. These problems are largely caused by an unwarranted expectation of continued material progress entirely without limits.”

But what about social or psychological problems? With regard to this domain Hechscher suggests that perhaps too much was expected of the welfare state. “Abolition of existing injustices was supposed to solve all social problems within a very limited period of time. Improvement of the material conditions of the broad strata of “common people” was hailed as the one thing that was really needful. Disenchantment naturally followed when it was discovered that no new heaven and earth had been created and that serious social problems can still be identified in such prosperous societies as those of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.” (Hechshire, 1984, pg. 157). Although this is an interesting outcome, it certainly is not a strong argument against the Swedish system. It should probably not come as a surprise that a particular economic/political system – however effective it is – will not solve all the problems of a country.

A degree of suffering and difficulty is simply a part of the human condition, and no political or economic system is going to change that. Some critics of the system go beyond this and suggest that the Swedish system creates as well as solves problems. It would be surprising if this were not, at least to some extent, true. Most human choices entail some sort of trade off. Clearly, when one evaluates the Swedish system in terms of those values that most people would affirm, it is strong on the credit side. But what about the debits?

Critics of the Swedish system have brought up a number of questions about possible problems – most of which are focused on the concept of the welfare state. The welfare state has been accused of undermining initiative. Some would feel that it is inherently unfair to hard working people to make them pay for the basic needs of those people who seem to be living off the system without putting much back into it – malingerers or dead-beats, as they would be labeled in the United States. Some people feel that the system is patronizing and may actually limit individual freedom by an excess of well-meaning and protective laws and regulations. It is probably true, as some have pointed out, that the traditional family system, as it is typically conceived in the United States, has been to some degree undermined in Sweden. Whether this is ultimately to the good or not remains to be seen.

Some critics point to the relatively high suicide rate in Sweden as an indication that things are not well there. The Swedish rate of 20 per 100,000 for males and 8.5 for females is moderately high but does not stand out from the rates in other countries. For example, the figures for the US are 19.8 for males and 4.4 for females. And the rates for both Sweden and the US are low in comparison with some countries. Russia, for example, has a rate of 74.1 for males and 13.3 for females. (Statistics are from nationmaster.com). These statistics by themselves may raise questions, but there are relatively few firm conclusions as to actual causality that can be drawn from them. The chances are good that various factors may influence the suicide rate of a country, and that the weight of the various factors may be quite different from one country to another.

Given the difficulty of interpreting the statistics and data that we have at our disposal, little can be said with certainty about the debit side of the Swedish ledger. I would like to risk, however, a couple of speculations as to what we might be seeing in the Scandinavian countries, and in Sweden in particular. Historically, for most people in most countries two factors have defined the purposes of life that motivate most people: necessity and religion.

If a person is hungry, or in pain, or has no place to live, he or she spends little time wondering about the purpose of life. It is defined by necessity: securing food, gaining freedom from pain, and finding shelter.

To the extent that a person managed to achieve a reasonable degree of security with regard to the necessities, the religious precepts of one’s society defined one’s purposes, usually in terms of various social responsibilities. Since the 17th century when Sweden broke away from the Catholic church, the official religion in Sweden has been defined by the Evangelical Lutheran Church. However, as of the middle of the 19th century the hold of the church on the larger culture began to weaken. While 90% of the people in Sweden are nominal members of the Lutheran church, very few are active, and only 14% of the people in Sweden profess to believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity.

Most people would consider freedom from anxiety about securing the basic material necessities of life a blessing. Whether the demise of the Christian religion as an active force in one’s culture is a blessing or a curse depends on one’s point of view. Perhaps it is a bit of both. In any case, in Sweden neither necessity nor traditional religion are effective suppliers of meaning. It would seem reasonable to speculate that living in a society in which neither necessity nor religion supplied one with an obvious and dependable sense of purpose might create a crisis of meaning for people. It appears to me that this is precisely what the movies of Ingmar Bergman are about. It is no accident that his genius came to fruition in the Swedish soil.

One of the most severe criticisms of Sweden concerns it behavior during WWII. Sweden remained throughout the war committed to a policy of neutrality. For this reason it refused to provide military support to Finland when it was invaded by Russia. On the other hand, throughout the war Sweden continued to trade with Germany. Sweden’s exports to Germany included iron ore and manufactured goods that Germany was able to use in it’s war effort. Also Sweden allowed Germany the right to transport its troops through Sweden, which assisted the German offense against Russia. This support of Germany would appear to be a violation of Sweden’s own policy of neutrality. Furthermore, at a time when the facts of the holocaust were generally known, any support of the German war effort seems hard to defend.

The historical background

Alexander Pope tells us that the child is the father of the man. It seems like a logical proposition even though at times the development from the child to the man is less than straightforward and obvious. In the 9th century Nordic Vikings were routinely raping and pillaging any European settlement within the reach of their ships. One has to confess that this child which became Sweden had an inauspicious beginning. From the 11th to the 15th centuries Scandinavia was a scene of continuous tension, conflict and war between geographical areas and between various factions within each geographical area. The country was unified during the 16th century and became a world power during the 17th century, during which time it managed to conquer a sizable empire around the Baltic Sea. It was for a while the dominant power in Europe. There is little in this childhood that set Sweden apart from the other European nation states that were competing with it for power, wealth and territory – little that foreshadowed the remarkable and highly individual developmental choices that it made during the 20th century.

During the 18th and 19th centuries Sweden gradually lost a great deal of its power due to a variety of military and political events. By the beginning of the 20th century Sweden was beginning to industrialize, but it was at that time a very poor country with most of the population living on farms. Conditions in the country were severe enough that between 1850 and 1890 about a million Swedes migrated to the United States, looking for a more affluent way of life.

If we look for historical factors that might have some relevance for the pattern of political and economic life that developed in the twentieth century, perhaps two facts stand out. First, in Sweden the farmers never experienced the kind of subjection they did in most other places in Europe. As the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Sweden points out, ” serfdom never came to Sweden; Swedish farmers remained free. Sweden was the only European country in which peasants formed the fourth estate in the Diet. Since the Middle Ages royal propaganda had been designed to influence the opinion of the peasants in political matters.” (Sweden. Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.) From the beginning the lowest economic class was a political power that had to be reckoned with.

A second important fact is that from 1814 to the present Sweden has enjoyed in unbroken period of peace. In the 20th century this non-involvement in war was preserved by a continuing policy of neutrality with regard to the struggles that other nations engaged in. Sweden did not take sides in either of the world wars, and refused to align itself with either faction during the cold war.

As the Social Democrats formulated their fundamental policies in the early part of the 20th century, they firmly rejected the violent rhetoric and practices of the communists. But neither did they bind themselves to a narrow and rigid doctrine of capitalism. They were pragmatic rather than ideological in their orientation. They were happy to take from either capitalism or from socialist thought that which worked – that which in fact led to a flourishing and equitable society that was responsive to human need. As the subtitle of Helco and Madsens book “Policy and Politics in Sweden” suggests, the Swedish experiment was grounded on “principled pragmatism.”

The need for a balanced globalization

It is obvious that a viable system of economic and political life does not entail just one element. Globalization is almost certainly inevitable, and I would argue that it is ultimately desirable. But we cannot take only one factor of a complete system, and implement it alone on a global scale, and expect that we will in this way produce a balanced and viable system. The power of the market has been globalized, but the power of labor has not. And this is only the beginning. The list of other institutions and mechanisms that must be globalized will have to include an adequate system of law, a mechanism for collecting global taxes, an adequate health, education and welfare system, and mechanisms that will continuously re-distribute the wealth in the direction of equity. To globalize only one of the full range of powers, mechanisms, and institutions that are needed for a balanced and equitable global system is a program that can lead only to disaster.

By drawing on Sweden’s experience we are able to sketch a general picture of what a healthy and viable globalization might look like. To attempt to fill in the details of this picture is, of course, too large for either one essay or one person to cover. But it would seem worthwhile to suggest in broad outline the direction in which we need to move.

Globalized Labor. It is clear that one of the reasons for Sweden’s ability to develop a prosperous society is that labor was a very strong force in the country for the major portion of the 20th century. The Social Democratic Party was the party of labor. Labor kept it in power, and it, in turn, advocated strongly for the needs of the worker. The Swedish experiment demonstrates the need for the power of capital to be balanced by the power of labor. To globalize the power of the market without simultaneously globalizing the power of labor can only lead to grossly unacceptable working conditions, to the impoverishment of workers and their families, and to the degradation of the environment. Nations are forced into what David Korten has aptly termed the “race to the bottom.” (Korten. 1995.) In order to try to attract multinationals who might be interested in investing in their countries, governments are forced to ignore intolerable working conditions, to squelch the efforts of labor to gain a living wage, and to keep all environmental regulations dangerously lax. This is the direction that the system itself forces on people. Even if political leaders and business executives have a personal commitment to more humanistic values, they must set these values aside or they will fail to be competitive.

The Constitution of the International Labor Organization of the United Nations articulates some excellent observations and ideals:

Conditions of labor exist involving such injustice hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labor supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures.

Unfortunately the world lacks a global equivalent to Sweden’s Social Democratic party. The International Labor Organization has identified the needs but lacks the power to do much to improve the situation. If labor is to become a globalized power the key is solidarity. Workers everywhere must recognize that they have a common set of interests. When a worker in Nicaragua fails to secure a living wage from an multinational corporation, (or a local business that is totally dependent on one) workers in the United States are injured. This understanding seems slow in coming. In the meantime, progress is not totally blocked. An important first step is for the developing nations to form an effective political coalition. Although the gap between the rich and the poor is growing in most countries, it is still in the developing nations that one finds the lion’s share of workers that are exploited for cheap labor. Fortunately the spirit of solidarity is already catching on among the developing countries. The walk out at the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun last September in protest against the unfair trade practices forced through by the wealthy nations was a victory for the developing countries, and a first step toward developing a powerful labor coalition on a global level.

Globalized law. International Court of Justice established in 1945 is a first step in the direction of resolving world conflicts by law rather than by the unilateral actions of states. Unfortunately the most powerful country in the world, the United States, has made it clear that it has no intention of respecting the judgments of the U.N. when its decisions are not to its liking. This was made abundantly clear when the Court judged in 1986 that the US was “in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state.” The US ignored the Court’s order to refrain from its unlawful use of force, and to pay Nicaragua reparations for the enormous damage that was done to the country.

It is obvious that the World Court needs to be strengthened. Perhaps the most important step that is needed at this point would be for the United States to discontinue it’s policy of establishing itself as the head of a world empire, and to submit itself to a system of international law.

Jubilee Research at New Economics Foundation makes a strong case that, in addition to the World Court, there is a pressing need for an international bankruptcy court. When an individual or corporate agency within a country becomes unable to meet it’s financial obligations, it has recourse to bankruptcy. This allows the issue to be resolved in an orderly and lawful manner in such a way that the basic survival needs of individuals are not threatened. Yet when a country comes to a point where it is allowing it’s own citizens to go hungry and to die from easily preventable or treatable diseases, because it is obligated to pay debts that it cannot possible handle, it has no such recourse. On the contrary, the IMF uses this occasion as an opportunity to force whatever “restructuring” on the country that it deems appropriate. Often these restructuring arrangements force the indebted nation to privatize health resources. Privatization leads to a de-emphasis on primary health care and to putting services that are essential to life out of the reach of the less wealthy. Clearly, if a country is unable to provide for the most basic health and survival needs of it citizens, it should not forced to service debts that it simply cannot re-pay.

Globalized health, education and welfare. The Swedish social system is predicated on the idea that the government should assure the well-being of it’s citizens in the areas of health, education and material necessities. It is curious that this should be a controversial proposition. The term “the welfare state” has negative connotations in the United States, while in Sweden people are generally proud of their system. What might be the reasons why people should be reluctant to provide an adequate safety net for all people?

One argument against a welfare state might be that it is not practical from an economic point of view. This argument is easily disposed of. Sweden has provided well for it’s citizens for over 70 years, and is at the same time one of the most successful economies in the world.

Much of the resistance to developing an adequate system of well-being in the United States stems from irrational set of attitudes rooted in the puritan head-set. Puritans are concerned that people get only what they deserve, and no more. To the puritan mind, that “freeloaders” should be able to take advantage of a system is not so much a practical problem as a moral one. To the extent that welfare is begrudgingly made available to people, it is invariably connected with means testing – a concept that was discarded in Sweden. The purpose of the means testing is again not so much practical as it is moral. It is considered unseemly that anybody but the “worthy poor” should receive assistance in times of need. Those that are in dire straits because of their own moral weaknesses deserve to freeze to death while lying in the gutter. This moralistic attitudinal framework that is prevalent in many places, but which is especially strong in the United States, merits careful examination. It is a judgmental and mean-spirited framework that seriously impedes the task of finding practical ways of reducing the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world.

A third source of resistance to developing systems of health and welfare in the world is ideological in nature. It is based on the simplistic assumption that because the market works well in some situations for some purposes, it must be used in all situations for all purposes. This view is firmly entrenched in the neoliberal perspective that now dominates economic policies around the world

In Sweden it was found that if the health, education and material welfare of citizens was to be guaranteed, the market had to be balanced by a large and vital public sector. And this worked both economically and humanistic ally. In view of the demonstrated success of the Swedish system, the rigid and doctrinaire insistence of the IMF that virtually all services be privatized is hard to justify. Except for the United States, all developed countries have comprehensive systems of socialized health services. What can possibly be the justification of denying this option to the poor countries who most need it? Also it is assumed by most people that education and many welfare benefits are best handled in the public sector. One could argue that only wealthy nations can afford a socialized system of medicine, but Cuba has demonstrated that this is not so. Despite embargoes that have artificially retarded its economic development, Cuba is listed as being among the nations with the lowest under-five mortality rates in the world. The 2004 issue of The State of the World’s Children lists Cuba’s rate as 9 per 1000, which is only one higher than the US rate of 8.

When one looks at what actually works to provide for a high level of well-being for people in the areas of health, education, and material security, it is clear that the market must be balanced with a significant public sector. This is true not only within countries but in the global community as well. This fact should be reflected in the policies and practices of all international organizations. With organizations such as the WHO and UNICEF we have the rudimentary beginnings of such a public sector on a globalized level. Their activities need to be expanded and their funding increased by several fold.

Globalized taxes. If we are going to assure the health, education and material well-being of all the citizens of the world, its going to cost money, and this money is not going to be generated by means of a global bake sale. Somebody is going to have to be taxed. Nobody, of course, likes taxes. But the Swedish experience is instructive. It demonstrates unequivocally that people are willing to pay high taxes if they administered in an equitable manner, and if the money is put to good use. When the Social Democrats won again in Sweden in 2002, Robert Taylor, writing in the New Statesman observed that this confirmed their “position as the most successful political party in the world.” He pointed out that “they have governed for 61 of the past 70 years, a record without equal among democratic societies.” (Taylor, Robert. 2002). The voters in Sweden understand that high taxes is the price they have to pay for their welfare state, and they have demonstrated their willingness to pay this price for about 70 years now.

It is sometimes argued that a combination of high taxes and the security of a welfare state will undermine individual effort and initiative. In “Sweden: The Middle Way on Trial” Marquis Childs relates an interesting incident:

An economics professor doing consulting work overseas told me that out of a fee of $9,000 he would have perhaps $1,000 left after the marginal levy. I spoke of the effect of this tax to a well-informed Swedish official, suggesting it was hardly an incentive for greater effort, whatever the field. His response was interesting: that is not necessarily true, he said, as money rewards are not so important as titles — engineer, professor, whatever; this you will see by glancing at any telephone book. (Childs, Marquis W. 1980. pg. 49)

In fact, once a person’s basic material needs are securely provided for, many other motivations for making large efforts come into play. Recognition, the satisfaction of doing something well, the adventure of taking on a challenge, and the sense that one is making a contribution to life are all strong motivators for most of us.

The “tobin tax,” named after James Tobin who was the first to suggest it, would be a small tax of between 0.1 and 0.25% on all international market transactions. The primary purpose would be to prevent the kind of excessive short term speculation that tends to destabilized money markets in a harmful manner. The idea would be to use the money generated by this tax to fund much needed health and ecological projects around the world. The revenues could be contributed to such international agencies as UNICEF and WHO. This would certainly be a step in the direction of developing a globalized system of taxation.

The need for globalization does not end with the issues of labor, law, health and welfare, and taxes. Measures must be found to assure the continual re-distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor. The civil liberties of all the citizens of the world must be protected. The freedom of the press in all countries must be part of a world agenda. The rights of minorities and the protection of diversity must become aspects of a global commitment. And, of course, democracy itself must be globalized. Non-violent means must be found that will enable a true democracy of nations to eventually usurp the world empire set up by the United States that currently rules world. To spin out what measures might be called for with regard to each of these concerns is beyond both my competence and the limits of a single paper. Suffice it to say that the globalized system that is currently being built must include all the elements of a civilized society. To globalize only the market, and to leave out all the other elements needed for a healthy global society is to invite disaster.

Conclusion

One of the guiding principles of the Swedish experiment is captured in the word, “lagom.” Heclo and Madsen explain the meaning of this term in their book, “Principled Pragmatism.” It is a “term derived form the ancient custom of passing around a community drinking jug. Government policies should arrange a distribution of social resources that was logom – meaning appropriate, moderated, fair. A person would not take more than his or her share, but neither would anyone stand outside the system of community provision.” (Heclo, Hugh, and Madsn, Henrik. 1987. pg. 158) If one added to this the idea of a value oriented pragmatism, and then mixed in a strong commitment to non-violence resolution of conflicts, one would come close to having the recipe that gave direction to the Swedish experiment. In most regards it worked well for them. We could do worse than follow their example on the global level.

References

Childs, Marquis W. 1980. Sweden: the Middle Way on Trial. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Bosworth, Barry P., and Rivlin, Alice M. 1987. The Swedish Economy. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Hadenius, Stig. 1985. Swedish Politics During the 20th Century. The Swedish Institute.

Heckscher, Gunnar, 1984. The Welfare State and Beyond: Success and Problems in Scandinavia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Heclo, Hugh, and Madsen, Henrik. 1987. Policy and Politics in Sweden: Principled Pragmatism. Lund: Arvik forlag.

Korten, David. 1995. When Corporations Rule the World. West Harford: Kumerian Press.

Olsson, Sven. 1990. Social Policy and Welfare State in Sweden. Lund: Arvik forlag.

Taylor, Robert. 2002. Triumph without triangulation. New Statesman, 9/23/2002, Vol. 131.

UNICEF. The State of the World’s Children. New York: UNICEF House.

Nation-Master.com

"Sweden" Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.