IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ieadps/313942.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The surprising ingredients of Swedish success: Free markets and social cohesion

Author

Listed:
  • Sanandaji, Nima

Abstract

New IEA paper demonstrates that Swedish success is a result of the free market and not the welfare stateExecutive Summary:Sweden did not become wealthy through social democracy, big government and a large welfare state. It developed economically by adopting free-market policies in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It also benefited from positive cultural norms, including a strong work ethic and high levels of trust.As late as 1950, Swedish tax revenues were still only around 21 per cent of GDP. The policy shift towards a big state and higher taxes occurred mainly during the next thirty years, as taxes increased by almost one per cent of GDP annuallyThe rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden's relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th.Big government had a devastating impact on entrepreneurship. After 1970, the establishment of new firms dropped significantly. Among the 100 firms with the highest revenues in Sweden in 2004, only two were entrepreneurial Swedish firms founded after 1970, compared with 21 founded before 1913.High levels of equality and favourable social outcomes were evident before the creation of an extensive welfare state. Moreover, generous welfare policies have created numerous social problems, including high levels of dependency among certain groups.Descendants of Swedes who migrated to the USA in the 19th century are characterised by favourable social outcomes, such as a low poverty rate and high employment, despite the less extensive welfare state in the USA. The average income of Americans with Swedish ancestry is over 50 per cent higher than Swedes in their native country.Third World immigrants have been particularly badly affected by a combination of high welfare benefits and restrictive labour market regulations. In 2004, when the Swedish economy was performing strongly, the employment rate among immigrants from non- Western nations in Sweden was only 48 per cent.Since the economic crisis of the early 1990s, Swedish governments have rolled back the state and introduced market reforms in sectors such as education, health and pensions. Economic freedom has increased in Sweden while it has declined in the UK and USA. Sweden's relative economic performance has improved accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanandaji, Nima, 2012. "The surprising ingredients of Swedish success: Free markets and social cohesion," IEA Discussion Papers 41, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313942/1/iea-dp041.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:aei:rpbook:24898 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Olivier Blanchard & Roberto Perotti, 2002. "An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(4), pages 1329-1368.
    3. Niclas Berggren & Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl, 2008. "Trust and growth: a shaky relationship," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 251-274, September.
    4. Lauren Cohen & Joshua Coval & Christopher Malloy, 2011. "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1015-1060.
    5. Magnus Henrekson & Andreas Bergh, 2010. "Government Size and Implications for Economic Growth," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 50388, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wataru Miyamoto & Thuy Lan Nguyen & Dmitriy Sergeyev, 2018. "Government Spending Multipliers under the Zero Lower Bound: Evidence from Japan," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 247-277, July.
    2. Travis Chow & Zhongwen Fan & Li Huang & Oliver Zhen Li & Siman Li, 2023. "Reciprocity in Corporate Tax Compliance—Evidence from Ozone Pollution," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 61(5), pages 1425-1477, December.
    3. Kameda, Taisuke & Namba, Ryoichi & Tsuruga, Takayuki, 2021. "Decomposing local fiscal multipliers: Evidence from Japan," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Giovanna Ciaffi & Matteo Deleidi & Mariana Mazzucato, 2024. "Measuring the macroeconomic responses to public investment in innovation: evidence from OECD countries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 33(2), pages 363-382.
    5. Emi Nakamura & J?n Steinsson, 2014. "Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union: Evidence from US Regions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(3), pages 753-792, March.
    6. Daniel Shoag, 2013. "Using State Pension Shocks to Estimate Fiscal Multipliers since the Great Recession," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 121-124, May.
    7. Boehm, Christoph E., 2020. "Government consumption and investment: Does the composition of purchases affect the multiplier?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 80-93.
    8. Fuchs-Schündeln, N. & Hassan, T.A., 2016. "Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 923-1012, Elsevier.
    9. Jeffrey Clemens & Stephen Miran, 2012. "Fiscal Policy Multipliers on Subnational Government Spending," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 46-68, May.
    10. Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, 2017. "Geographic Cross-Sectional Fiscal Multipliers: What Have We Learned?," 2017 Meeting Papers 1214, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Taehyun Kim & Quoc H Nguyen, 2020. "The Effect of Public Spending on Private Investment," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 24(2), pages 415-451.
    12. Belo, Frederico & Gala, Vito D. & Li, Jun, 2013. "Government spending, political cycles, and the cross section of stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 305-324.
    13. Gerald Carlino & Robert P. Inman, 2013. "Macro Fiscal Policy in Economic Unions: States as Agents," NBER Working Papers 19559, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Jeffrey Clemens & Stephen Miran, 2012. "Fiscal Policy Multipliers on Subnational Government Spending," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 46-68, May.
    15. Ying Hao & Jing Lu, 2018. "The Impact of Government Intervention on Corporate Investment Allocations and Efficiency: Evidence from China," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 47(2), pages 383-419, June.
    16. Li, Rong & Zhou, Yijiang, 2021. "Estimating local fiscal multipliers using political connections," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Giovanna Ciaffi & Matteo Deleidi & Enrico Sergio Levrero, 2022. "The Macroeconomic Impact of Public Spending in Research and Development: An Initial Exploration for G7 and 15 Oecd Countries," Bulletin of Political Economy, Bulletin of Political Economy, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Fernando Broner & Daragh Clancy & Aitor Erce & Alberto Martin, 2022. "Fiscal Multipliers and Foreign Holdings of Public Debt," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(3), pages 1155-1204.
    19. Antonella Cavallo & Antonio Ribba, 2017. "Measuring the Effects of Oil Price and Euro-area Shocks on CEECs Business Cycles," Department of Economics 0111, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    20. Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, 2019. "Geographic Cross-Sectional Fiscal Spending Multipliers: What Have We Learned?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 1-34, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313942. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieaaauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.