Debunking the Glam of the Nordic Model

Downtown City Scenes in Oslo, Norway. Photo by Toby Simkin.

The Nordic model is a set of social welfare-oriented policies often credited with the high quality of life in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland. In these countries, it can often seem as though everyone is happy, everything is free, and people trust their government. Given this, many American policy pundits argue that the Nordic model would be successful in spurring economic growth and social welfare in the United States. In actuality, however, the Nordic model is not all that it’s chalked up to be. The Nordic model has indeed been proven to produce high levels of socio-economic equality, institutional trust, and overall satisfaction among citizens. However, extremely high tax rates, a limited amount of money available for luxury consumption, and the circumstances in which the Nordic model was established contradict the notion that this model is a potential answer to all of the United States’ problems. 

The Nordic model is built on the idea of social equality, meaning that all citizens should have universal access to basic necessities such as healthcare, education, and social welfare. This socioeconomic system combines the concepts of free-market capitalism with a strong welfare state to provide its citizens with unparalleled benefits. All of this is achieved through the aforementioned high levels of taxation which are used to fund social welfare programs. As it stands, the global average tax rate sits at 31.37%, while the European average is slightly higher at 32%. However, the Nordic countries have even higher tax rates, with Sweden leading at 57.6%, followed by Denmark at 55.56%, Finland at 51.25%, Norway at 47.2%, and Iceland at 46.22%. The model also emphasizes the importance of gender equality, aiming to reduce gender inequality in the workplace and promote work-life balance through extended maternity and paternity leaves. Essentially, this model is tailored to fit the homogenous needs of all the Nordic countries’ citizens, through a recognition of a culture made up of like-minded people. Each of these Nordic countries takes a unique approach based on their own specific social, economic, and political circumstances; while there are strong similarities between each respective country’s form of governance, they share no set guidelines or formal agreements. The resulting advantages are a reduced gap between the rich and the poor and encouraged workforce participation. 

So, given its success, why hasn’t the United States adopted this supposedly successful and equitable model? The United States neither gives its citizens access to universal healthcare, nor provides its retired citizens any guaranteed policies on financial assistance in their elderly years. Even paid maternity leave is a point of contention. 

Yet, the distinguishing factor between the United States and Nordic countries—the key factor that allows the Nordic model to thrive in its respective region—is cultural homogeneity. The Nordic model was founded on family-driven agricultural conflicts. Simply put, at the foundation of this multinational model, the same problems had arisen in each of its participating countries: a disparity between the vast access to natural resources and the limited ability to manufacture and service these resources. For example, in the early industrialization period, Finland, Norway and Sweden were home to some of the largest forest resources in the world. Timber, pulp, and paper were produced as important export products, yet the readily available exportation process was not able to meet the demand and allocate these resources. Similar conflicts occurred in the Danish economy with its relation to the agricultural industry, and in Iceland regarding the fishing industry. To address this issue, the citizens collectively trust the government to do what they think is best for the overall population because the government was developed from the ideas of culturally homogenous people. The potential for diverse institutions has been restricted by the size of the minority populations, who are politically weak and small in number. With such similarities across entire countries, it was not difficult for the Nordic peoples to develop confidence in their governments, ultimately leading to the model’s success today. On the other hand, citizens of the United States have rarely, if ever, found themselves in a similar situation. In fact, trust in the government has been rapidly decreasing in this country, with only about 24% of Americans saying that they could trust the government “at least most of the time.” Since 2007, the percentage of people expressing trust in the American government always or most of the time has remained below 30%. Conversely, in Norway alone, a 2021 report concluded that 77% of the population indicated they were able to trust the government. 

The level of trust that Nordic citizens put in their government is unlikely to be replicated in the United States because of the way in which American governmental confidence has evolved. Cultural heterogeneity plays a large role in influencing the United States’ governmental operations—the beauty of America is that there is not one set identity that constitutes “an American.” There is no singular, unequivocal shared goal for every individual, nor a certain character that “belongs” to this country. Thus, Nordic states’ ideological uniformity, the factor that allows for the success of the model, cannot be mirrored in contemporary American society.

But even considering its past successes, the Nordic model has begun facing the same issues that have prevented its successful implementation in the United States. These countries have seen extremely large numbers of immigrants in recent years, especially refugees and those seeking asylum. Sweden, the country with the highest number of immigrants in the last twenty years, saw nearly 91,000 people enter its borders in 2021. The overall population of these countries ranges between only 5 to 10 million people, making this single year immigration rate strikingly high. In fact, Sweden ranks 10th in the OECD when it comes to the proportion of immigrants residing in the country, with foreign-born individuals making up 14% of the overall population; nearly 19% of these immigrants have migrated to Sweden within the past 5 years.

In the face of these high immigration rates, immigration policies in the Nordic countries have become more restrictive in recent years, with increased emphasis on integration and language proficiency requirements. When considering the effects of the emerging influx of varying cultures not previously part of these culturally homogeneous environments, the Nordic model needs to undergo cross-sector developments, and seek solutions that the current design does not offer in the status quo. If Nordic countries are already seeing complications with the scalability of their social welfare policies, it would be unlikely for any similar adaptation to the United States. Application of the Nordic model in the United States would cause unquestionable problems regarding the U.S.’ structure of immigration and heterogeneity population. Increased globalization means that once homogenous cultures are fading. As a result, there will be fewer regions that can structure their governments solely on the basis of shared interests. What was reasoned to be the glory of the Nordic countries is now coming to light as an unsustainable model amidst a globalizing world. 

Joy Botros (BC ‘26) is a Staff Writer for CPR, planning to major in Economics & Social History. She is passionate about constitutional law and spends her free time reading romance novels.