A revista Economist publicou um relatório especial sobre os países nórdicos, apontando sua excelência em termos de qualidade de vida, e de prosperidade, de maneira geral, combinando vários traços positivos de um suposto modelo de sucesso. Muitos preferem ver o que aparenta ser responsável por essa situação (o Estado grande, muitos impostos, distribuição, serviços públicos de qualidade, etc...), esquecendo, ou ignorando, que nem sempre foi assim e que, sobretudo, essas características NÃO FORAM responsáveis pela boa condição desses países. Eles não vêem o que está por trás disso tudo, mitificando, ou mistificando, um suposto modelo nórdico que não é, justamente, o que se pensa, e sim outra coisa: trabalho, produtividade, educação, democracia, cultura de coesão e, especialmente, um setor privado vibrante, empreendedor, livre para inovar e comerciar. Nada disso surgiu com o modelo distributivista-socialista dos anos 1960-1980, e sim preexistia a esse modelo, que na verdade desmantelou as bases do crescimento e da produtividade.
O economista sueco de origem iraniana explica como isso ocorreu historicamente.
Transcrevo abaixo as conclusões desse relatório, que deve ser lido com atenção.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Nima
Sanandaji
The surprising ingredients of Swedish
success – free markets and social cohesion
Institute
of Economic Affairs (UK), August 2012 (www.iea.org.uk)
IEA
Discussion Paper No. 41
Conclusion (p. 40-41)
Scandinavian societies have developed a unique culture with a strong
work ethic and strong ethical attitudes regarding the claiming of welfare
benefits. There are also high levels of trust and social cohesion. This social
capital, which was built up before the advent of the modern welfare state, has played
an important role in the success of Scandinavian countries.
For many decades, this pre-existing culture, allowed countries such as
Sweden to have extensive welfare systems without the social difficulties, rise
in worklessness and other effects that many would have predicted. Scandinavian
countries have also reaped the rewards of relatively free market policies in
some areas of economic life to reach impressive levels of wealth creation.
To characterise the Swedish model either as a social democratic utopia
or a failed socialist experiment is a mistake. Sweden is a successful country
in terms of having a low poverty rate and long life expectancy. However, these
factors have much to do with non-government facets of Swedish society that
pre-existed the welfare state.
As Milton Friedman has previously noted, the millions of US residents of
Swedish descent also display low rates of poverty. They combine this with a
living standard that is significantly better compared with Swedes living in
Sweden. The transformation of Sweden from an impoverished agrarian society to a
modern industrialised nation is a rarely mentioned, but quite significant,
example of the role of free markets in lifting a country out of poverty and into
prosperity. Low levels of inequality and low levels of government spending
characterised this period of economic transformation. The golden age of Swedish
entrepreneurship - when one successful firm after another was founded in this small
country and gained international renown – occurred at a time when taxes and the
scope of government were quite limited.
Sweden shifted to radical social democratic policies in the 1960s and
1970s, with a gradual reversal beginning in the mid 1980s. The social
democratic period was not successful, as it led to much lower entrepreneurship,
the crowding out of private sector job production and an erosion of previously strong
work and benefit norms. The move towards high taxes, relatively generous
government benefits and a regulated labour market preceded a situation in which
Swedish society has had difficulty integrating even highly-educated immigrants,
and where a fifth of the population of working age are supported by various
forms of government welfare payments.
It is also important to remember that Sweden, like other Scandinavian
nations, has compensated for policies of high taxes and welfare benefits by
improving economic liberty in other fields. Some reforms, such as the partial
privatisation of the mandatory pensions system and voucher systems in schools
and healthcare surpass reforms in most developed nations. Since these reforms,
and the reduction in taxes from the very-high levels of the 1970s to mid 1980s,
Swedish relative economic performance has improved.
Swedish society is not necessarily moving away from the idea of a
welfare state, but continual reforms are being implemented that increase
economic liberty and incentives for work within the scope of the welfare
system. Such trends are also visible in Finland and Denmark, with only oil-rich
Norway being an exception.
