The Nordic model - is it able to sustain?

The Nordic societies are among those which have succeeded best in achieving
economic growth and overcoming poverty within their own borders. As a result
we are now also among the most profligate consumers of the world’s natural
resources. Has the Nordic model outlived itself, or could it also contain the
seeds of a sustainable development?

By John Hille, the Ideas Bank Foundation

The “Nordic model” of social development has long been a concept, not only at
home, but also among politically interested people outside the Nordic countries.
Among the latter it has traditionally been of special interest to those with more or less
social democratic leanings, but during recent years it has also met with interest in
financial circles. The fact that all the Nordic countries come out near the top of
international competitiveness rankings has made an impression.

The exact content of the Nordic model is less clear. A common denominator of most
descriptions is that all of the Nordic countries are welfare states with strong social
security and a willingness to redistribute income. But this is not unique to these
countries, nor were they the first to introduce several of their welfare programmes.
Bismarck introduced a universal old age pension in Germany 50 years before
Nygaardsvold did so in Norway. The first well-developed welfare state arose in New
Zealand, as far away from the Nordic countries as possible, and the term itself
originates from Britain, where it served as a vision for Attlee’s post-war government.

In one of the last years of the Soviet Union, the Ideas Bank – at that time a part of
the project “Project for an Alternative Future” – got a visit from one of Mikhail
Gorbachev’s advisors. He had half an hour at his disposal, and wanted to use this
time to get an accurate hold on the Nordic model, apparently hoping to be able to
introduce it in his own country. With genuine Russian determination he demanded to
know which attributes all of the Nordic countries had in common, and that no other
western country could show to the same extent. Several phenomena were proposed
and rejected: one did not exist in Finland, the second was absent in Denmark, the
third could be said to exist in Canada or the Netherlands, and so on. Rightly or
wrongly, we ended up settling for the strong degree of local democracy. None of us
could name other countries where municipalities played such an important part in the
formal political system, and where local democracy also was, or had been, so firmly
anchored in civil society. (Our guest may not have been too satisfied, as our answer
suggested it might would be difficult to introduce the Nordic model by decree from
Moscow.)

More recently, the Nordic Council of Ministers asked the magazine Mandag Morgen
(Monday Morning) to describe what the Nordic countries have in common. More
specifically they wanted to find out what has made the Nordic region into what “a
global winner region” – as measured by economic statistics. Mandag Morgen
approached this through interviews with nine Nordic businesspeople, nine scientists
and nine cultural personalities. Eight main points emerged from their answers;

- Equality – we take care of each other

- Trust
- Short distances to those in power – both within enterprises and in general so-
ciety there is a low degree of hierarchy
- Social inclusion - we want all to participate
- Flexibility
- Respect for nature

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 1

 - Aesthetics – we like simplicity and harmony
- Protestant work ethics

It is easy to recognise the connections between the four or five first points on the list
and commonly cited external attributes of the Nordic model, such as strong welfare
states and strong democracies with diffusion of power. But the report also states that
these eight attributes stimulate competitiveness. Where there is a high degree of
economic equality, the consequences of failure are bearable, so people dare to be
innovative. Where there is trust, transaction costs are small. Where there is a short
distance to those in power “subordinate” employees will show initiative and take
responsibility instead of waiting for orders. And so forth. In societies with fewer of
these attributes, it is easier to postulate a conflict between competitiveness and
generous welfare provisions.

The Mandag Morgen study also emphasizes the even level of education in the
Nordic countries. They have few “elite” schools or universities, but also few workers
with no educational qualifications.

During the Viking era, a lot of Scandinavian words were exported into English, and a
smaller number into languages such as French and Russian. Ever since, the Nordic
balance of trade in vocabulary has run a whopping deficit. The successful verbal
export articles of the past century can more or less be counted on one’s fingers.
Among them are sauna, smörgåsbord and quisling. Still, the names of two social
institutions have not only been exported as words, but with the institutions
themselves attached. The first is ombudsman, which now occurs in several European
countries and languages. The second is folkehøgskole, although this word has been
naturalised to Volkshochschule or folk high school. Both examples fit Mandag
Morgen’s image of the Nordic strengths. Ombudsmen exist to lessen the distance to
the powers-that-be, and prevent people’s rights from being trampled on. Folk high
schools were introduced to offer ordinary people more than a basic education, at a
time when only a small minority could afford to send their children to regular
secondary schools, and even fewer went to college or university.

Can the world afford the Nordic countries?

The current debate on the Nordic model mainly concerns the model’s economic
success, and whether this can be maintained. This was also the main concern in the
study ordered by the Nordic Council of Ministers.

Whether the model is sustainable or not is another question. Is it compatible with the
goal of achieving global equity while avoiding ecological catastrophes? The fact that
some of the world’s most affluent countries have good prospects of further increasing
their wealth does not prove that they are on the road to sustainability in a global
perspective. Some would rather suggest the opposite.

Mandag Morgen identified “respect for nature” as one characteristic of Nordic

societies. It is unclear exactly how this was founded in their 27 interviews. The
relevant quotes in the study mainly refer to economic opportunities based on natural
attributes and resources, including tourism, production of niche food products and
renewable sources of energy. Other and broader surveys from several Nordic
countries do nonetheless show that people seem to consider contact with nature
important for their quality of life. To appreciate close encounters with nature could be
one source of inspiration for a desire to live sustainably, but the two attitudes are not
identical.

Nordic countries taken initiatives and produced symbolic figures and events that

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 2

have contributed to a positive “environmental image” around the world. This goes
back to the early days of the modern environmental movement, when Sweden, for
example, was the first country to ban DDT and Norway the second. The first UN
Conference on the Human Environment (1972) was held in Stockholm, a choice not
solely motivated by the fact that Sweden was officially neutral in the Cold War. In that
same year Norway appointed the world’s first Minister of the Environment. One of his
successors, Gro Harlem Brundland, went on not only to become Prime Minister, but
to head the World Commission on Environment and Development. Denmark has
become known as the world’s wind power laboratory, Finland as a world leader in the
use of bioenergy, and Iceland for its ambition to become the first “hydrogen society”.

Underneath the important symbols and the technological flagships based on natural
advantages, the reality has been a bit more mixed. Norway, Finland and Iceland are
among the European countries where energy consumption and CO2 emissions have
grown the most over the past 30 years, while Sweden and Denmark have managed
to reduce their emissions, and Denmark has not even increased its final energy
consumption since 1973 – a unique feat among rich industrial countries. What the
statistics tell us about actual energy consumption and actual emissions is however,
only a part of the picture. In a world where the production chains stretch worldwide,
the effects of our consumption are often felt far from home

Consumption of goods is both high and rapidly increasing in all Nordic countries. The
Danes occupy more dwelling space per capita than any other people in Europe, with
the Norwegians in second place. The Danes have always ranked high in meat
consumption as well, while the Swedes and Norwegians, who have traditionally
eaten less meat, are catching up fast: in both countries, meat consumption has
increased by 40% since 1990. Over the same period, Norwegian consumption of
clothing increased by 70 % (measured in tons), while consumption of furniture tripled
and the consumption of sports gear quadrupled. International air travel, where all the
Nordic countries are near the top of the world ranking and the emissions are not
registered in any national statistics, is also growing dramatically.

The best on environmental issues, but the worst on sustainability?

In early 2006, scientists at Yale University in USA published a ranking of the
environmental achievements of 132 countries. Their index was constructed in a way
that made affluent countries, which can afford major environmental investments and
also have the will to make them insofar at the health of their own inhabitants is at
stake, inevitably did well. The countries ranked from 1st to 33rd on the list are, with
only a few exceptions, identical to the worlds most affluent countries. In this study
Sweden, Finland and Denmark were ranked 2nd, 3rd and 7th, while Iceland (13th)
and Norway (18th) were closer to the middle of the affluent group. Even coming 18th
out of 132 looks respectable enough.

However, the latest edition of the Living Planet Report, published by the World Wide
Fund for Nature, produced almost opposite results. The WWF ranked 140 countries
by the size of their ecological footprint per inhabitant, - a measure which emphasises
consumption of resources and contribution to the global environmental problems.
Iceland was not included, but the remaining Nordic countries came in as Nos. 5, 6, 9
and 11 from the bottom of this global sustainability ranking.

The Nordic countries have maintained a very high profile regarding international
problem-solving and solidarity. In relation to their size, no other countries have
contributed as much to either to the UN’s budgets or to its peacekeeping operations,
or held as many prominent positions in the organization. Besides, the Scandinavian
countries are, alongside the Netherlands, the only countries which for decades have

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 3

fulfilled the UN goal of donating at least 0,7 % of their income to developing
countries. (Finland on the other hand ranks in the middle, while Iceland is among
those which donate the least.)

Every year the American Centre for Global Development ranks 21 affluent countries
by their contributions to global development. Iceland is not included, but in 2005
Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland were ranked 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th
respectively. To a large extent, these results were due to the fact that all the countries
got good marks for contributions to peace and security, and all except Finland got top
marks for spending on aid. Finland made up for this by being recognized as one of
the best countries at transferring technology. In other areas, such as trade,
immigration policies and environment, Nordic countries did a middling performance
at best. Finnish immigration policies and Norwegian trade policies were even judged
to be among the worst of the lot. In other words, the Nordic countries showed the
most solidarity in areas that hardly affected everyday life at home. We export money,
which we have in abundance, or we export technology, or we export peacekeeping
forces and peace initiatives.

To integrate immigrants into society, to open our markets to poor countries or to

reduce our consumption of resources - these are challenges that demand
adjustments in both everyday life and the economy. In the face of such challenges,
we suddenly seem to lose our star quality on the development stage.

A model in crisis?
The UN summit on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 was the
first to put both environmental challenges and global injustices squarely on the
agenda, and thus to challenge the consumption patterns of the affluent minority. The
Rio summit resulted in a document, Agenda 21, which consists of four main parts.
The final part is about financing and implementation, but the headings of the
remaining three sent an important signal to world society. Part 1 is about global
inequalities, Part 2 about the environmental and resource challenges and Part 3
about the need for all major groups in society to contribute if the problems described
in Parts 1 and 2 were to be solved. In other words the heads of government
assembled in Rio recognized that the problems could not be solved “from above”. A
broad democratic mobilization was needed, in which businesses, trades unions, local
government, NGOs, women’s organizations, youth and ethnic minorities must
participate. The need for better knowledge about the global challenges and an
increase in the exchange of experience with solutions were also emphasized.

The Rio summit has been followed by two more summits on sustainable
development, in New York in 1997 and in Johannesburg in 2002. In New York it was
recognized that much remained to be done about the follow-up of Agenda 21. The
most evident result until then had been the response by local governments to the call
to start Local Agenda 21 processes in collaboration with their inhabitants. The
Johannesburg recognized that there still was a considerable need for education on
the challenges and possibilities of sustainability. The summit therefore proposed that
a global “Decade for Education on Sustainable Development” should be launched.
The UN General Assembly accepted the proposal the following year, and the Decade
commenced in 2005.

According to the UN, education and public participation are thus among the keys to
sustainable development. The Nordic countries have strong traditions in both fields,
and should therefore have good prospects.

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 4

Yet these strengths are not very evident in the Nordic performance on environment
and development to date. The Nordic countries have distinguished themselves in
measures that can be decided “from above”; large aid budgets and contributions to
the UN, regulation of industrial emissions, bans on toxic substances, large areas
(with little economic potential) set aside as national parks and nature reserves. But
our patterns of consumption are at the bottom of the global sustainability league and
show few signs of improving. This challenge can only be solved through people’s
willingness, participation and knowledge.

In this respect, the Nordic model has not succeeded very well so far. At least two
explanations are possible. One is that the “model” as such, or some of the traditional
strengths Mandag Morgen claimed the model relied on, is unravelling and may not
last into the future. Another is that the opportunities for promoting global and
ecological sustainability that could spring out of these social values have not yet
been seriously explored.

Many pundits have claimed to see signs indicating that some of the pillars supporting
the model have weakened during the past couple of generations. The number of
communities where the level of trust is such that people leave their homes unlocked
have undoubtedly decreased. Income disparities have grown somewhat over the
past 10-20 years, and become more widely accepted. The societies have become
more differentiated, not just ethnically due to immigration, but also because of the
growing multitude of accepted ways to live our lives and the growing multitude of
interests it is possible to pursue. We have fewer frames of reference in common, and
this might reduce both the will and the capability to engage everyone.

Growing affluence does not only make it possible to consume more – it also affects
attitudes, partly in ways that increase the urge to consume. We have different
interests and lifestyles as a result of the increase in material opportunities. In
addition, consumption researchers claim that people living in differentiated societies
need to indicate which sub-culture they belong to. This is expressed through
consumption, be it of clothes, cars, interior decorations or exotic travel destinations.
Furthermore, affluence and economic independence not only seem to weaken
people’s ties to their communities, but also to promote a “care-free” attitude in other
areas. According to surveys carried out in Norway, people thought it more important
to solve environmental problems then to promote economic growth around the year
1980 and again around 1990. These were periods of recession and rising
unemployment. During the boom periods of the mid-1980’s and since the mid-1990’s,
most people – according to the same series of surveys - have given priority to
economical growth. (The very latest survey does, however, suggest that there has
been a slight turnaround since 2003).

Are local communities sustainable in the Internet age?

There have been some important intermediaries between individual values and the
Nordic model regarded as sets of national policies. One has been the strong local
governments. Over the past generation many local government politicians have,
however, complained that their scope for action has been whittled away, as central
governments have produced more and more regulations and imposed more and
more mandatory tasks on municipalities, without allowing them to increase their
revenue correspondingly. This may have made local politics less interesting, not only
to the politicians, but also to the voters. In both Norway and Finland, participation in
local elections has dropped from about 80 % in the 1960’s, to under 60 % at the last
elections. In Denmark participation has been more stable, but considerably lower
than in general elections. In Sweden, participation in local elections tells little about
people’s interest in local politics, as these elections are held together with the general
elections.

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 5

If interest in local democracy is sagging, there could nevertheless be more reasons
than a reduction in municipalities’ freedom of action. The fact that people identify less
with their local community could be one. What films are shown at the local cinema, or
whether a local cinema even exists, gets less important when you have a car and are
able to drive to the nearest city and watch the films on show there. It gets even less
important when you have a television set with 16 cable channels, and you can
choose whatever films you want on the PC.1

Our networks are no longer as attached to the local community as they once were.
They can be both national and world-wide in the real or virtual sense (which
obviously increases consumption of transport and communication electronics). In
addition to formal local democracy, this also affects another traditionally important
intermediary in the Nordic model; civil society. Non-profit organizations and social
movements, strongly expressed at the local level, have traditionally been an
important part of Nordic people’s lives and have played an essential part in the
shaping of society. Many of these organizations have seen membership decline
significantly during the past generation. We have more organizations than ever, but
the nature of the organizations has shifted from social involvement to the sharing of
common leisure interests or hobbies. The local enterprises with which communities
and many individuals once identified strongly, - particularly savings banks and co-ops
- have lost many of their local ties as they have merged into larger units. They no
longer lubricate local democracy to the same extent.

The tradition of public education2 suffers from some of the same tendencies as civil
society organizations. Evening courses on subjects related to people’s hobbies or
leisure interests attract far more people than study groups on important social issues.
In the mainstream media, including the state broadcasters which once had public
education as their mission, the element of entertainment has increased markedly at
the expense of information.

These trends affect our opportunities to mobilize for sustainable development. On

paper, Nordic municipalities responded better than most to the UN call for Local
Agenda 21 processes (and Sweden is the only country in the world where all
municipalities did so). However, 14 years after the Rio summit, it is clear that few
municipalities succeeded in inspiring truly broad public participation in the process.
Many of those that achieved significant results in the environmental field did so
through technological measures which were often funded “from above”, by central
government and/or the EU. The average person’s consumption pattern has definitely
not become more sustainable in this period.

Signals of hope?
Is it possible to “reinvent” the Nordic model to make it sustainable in the long run?
Can it be remoulded to suit both the social realities and global challenges of today?

In 1998, the Danish island (and municipality) of Samsø decided to leave the fossil
fuel age behind within 10 years. By 2005, they had almost achieved their goal.
Previously, 90 % of the island’s energy consumption consisted of oil. Now, 100 % of
electricity and 70 % of the heating energy come from the wind, solar collectors or
bioenergy. In addition, the island exports enough surplus renewable energy to

1
This example was incidentally chosen because the majority of cinemas in Norway are municipally
owned and operated. Municipal ownership of cinemas is less common in some of the other Nordic
countries.
2
The Scandinavian expressions – folkeopplysning in Norwegian and Danish, folkbildning in Swedish –
can hardly be precisely translated. The literal meaning of folkeopplysning is “enlightenment of the
people”.

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 6

compensate for the oil it still imports to run cars. The achievements on Samsø are
based more on new technologies than changes in peoples’ daily consumption
patterns, yet the way in which they were achieved present a good example of the
Nordic model at work. A company that consists of four equal partners: the local
government, the Business Council, the Farmers’ Union and an environmental
organization, is spearheading the drive to become a “Renewable Energy Island”. The
island’s 4000 inhabitants have raised almost all of the necessary capital through a
model of mixed economy. The local government owns some windmills, while others
are owned by local entrepreneurs and others again by ordinary households on a
cooperative basis. Every fourth household on the island has a share in a windmill.
Also, district heating has been introduced in five of the small villages on the island –
which only became possible once 70-80 % of the inhabitants of each village agreed
to participate in the projects. In Mandag Morgens terminology, Samsø’s success has
depended on widespread trust and social inclusion, combined with a short distance
to those in power.

The municipalities which achieved the most substantial results through the Local
Agenda 21 process played the same strings, often in innovative ways. In 2001the
City of Stavanger was awarded the “Synergy 21” prize for its work towards
sustainability. The city achieved its results by developing new network models to
meet people where they are, whether in business, civil society or the local
government organization. Civil society may be less organized than before, but it is
still possible to find it - be it at a PTA meeting, through the co-operative housing
associations or outside church after the service. Also, new forms of participatory
planning have been used in Stavanger, including future workshops, which have not
only generated visions of how the local environment could be improved, but also
inspired the participants to realize them.

The rural community of Grästorp in Sweden has managed, without much external
funding, to achieve major reductions in waste generation and oil consumption and a
large increase in the use of public transport. Games and humour have helped arouse
a somewhat sleepy civil society to the extent that that Grästorp now holds five
Guinness’ records in waste collection. The distance to those in power was the first
victim of Grästorp’s Local Agenda 21. The bishop of the district has had to climb out
of a rubbish container to preach the gospel of recycling. The Swedish Minister of the
Environment has been publicly berated in Grästorp by the fairytale figure Mulle – who
had heard rumours that the Minister had got there by airplane and not by train. And
the municipal Director of Technical Services has had to climb onto the roof of the
Town Hall every year wearing a propeller on his back – like “Karlsson on the roof” in
the children’s books by Astrid Lindgren - and toss organic sweets to a crowd of
laughing and cheering children below. Grästrop has also entered into twinning
relationship with Marrupa in Mozambique, one of the poorest districts in one of the
world’s most impoverished countries. Meeting people from Marrupa has undoubtedly
given some people in Grästorp a new insight into their own affluence.

Despite this, the average consumption of resources is high, both on Samsø, in

Stavanger and in Grästorp. Yet these communities have shown that the democratic
impulses are both alive and able to find new expressions in the Nordic countries, also
in relation to sustainability. This yearbook presents more communities which have
managed to do the same, for example the city district of Sagene in Oslo, the Halkær
Valley in Denmark and Trångsviken in Sweden. Nevertheless there is a long way to
go from these examples to sustainable Nordic countries.

There are however other “signals of hope” of at least two kinds. Some groups are
experimenting with radically less resource demanding and more environmentally
friendly lifestyles. You can find them at Svartlamon in Trondheim, with their “small-is-

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 7

beautiful” dwellings and organic gardens in back yards; at Friland in Denmark, where
they build houses of straw and recycled materials at the cost of DKK 1500 (€ 200)
per square metre; or in Sólheimar on Iceland, which is the oldest ecovillage in the
Nordic countries, with roots going back to 1930, but which keeps expanding and
trying out new ideas. This trend did not peter out in the 1970’s - on the contrary, there
have never been more ecovillages and experimental communities in the Nordic
countries than today, and nor perhaps more individual households making a
conscious effort at “simple living” (to use an English term which has become popular
in Denmark). As Chris Butters writes in this yearbook, these communities are still
“marginal”. But they demonstrate that the willingness to innovate that Mandag
Morgen found characteristic of the Nordic countries does not only apply to ideas with
chances of being floated on the stock market.

Local stunts or national role models?

Will the local examples of democratic renewal, from Samsø to Stavanger, remain
what they are: good but isolated examples? Will the marginal experiments remain
marginal, or can society at large learn something important from them? It remains to
be seen how “renewable” the Nordic model is on a macro level. But there are signs
of a will to innovate from central governments as well. Some of the most exciting
signals in 2005 came from Sweden. The Swedish Minister for Sustainable
Development, Mona Sahlin, declared that she wanted Sweden to quit its oil habit
within 2020, in other words to do what Samsø has largely done already. Whether the
project will succeed may depend on whether Sweden also manages to learn from the
cooperative spirit and will to “do one’s bit” on Samsø. In 2005 Sweden, probably as
the first country in the world, also got a Government-commissioned report on how
consumption - all aspects of consumption – could become sustainable. This is an
even more ambitious goal, which may require a willingness to learn from the
“marginal” experiences.

In 2006, Norway is to revise the country’s National Agenda 21, or plan of action for
sustainable development. The first version, which was drawn up in 2003, has had a
rather shadowy existence. It contained few new promises or ideas, and therefore
aroused little attention or discussion. Imagine if the new National Agenda were
created through a process in which ordinary people could participate, through all of
the means and channels that have been tested on Samsø, in Stavanger, in Grästorp
and in other creative communities. Imagine if the process were inspired by public
education, both on the radical innovations being tried out at the grass roots and on
the visionary ideas proposed by “elites” in other Nordic countries.

There would have been a lot of noise. It would have been fun. There would have
been a “short distance to those in power”. And it might have contributed to a renewal
of the Nordic model.

The Ideas Bank Foundation, John Hille www.idebanken.no 8