Dan Klein has an interview on Sweden, a country he knows well. It will read counterintuitive to many. In short, Dan argues that Swedish civic virtue precedes the welfare state and does not depend on it. Thinking otherwise implies not understanding “why the Swedish bumblebee flies as well as it does a strong and liberal national identity, free markets, civic virtue”.
A couple of highlights.
Dan emphasizes the importance of an entrepreneurial class that is relatively cohesive and that has a distinctive understanding of its own social role:
In Sweden there is a nexus of private enterprise—organizations, families—who still cohere as a loose yet important force of the central zone. They are counterparts to the “honest gentlemen” of Britain that David Hume and Adam Smith appealed to, the people of wealth who are called to assume the responsibility of using their wealth and influence wisely, most notably by not using political influence to acquire privileges against would-be competitors. It is my understanding that the private-enterprise nexus in Sweden tends to lean liberal, even in a scrupulous way.
These liberal elements were drawn upon in the 1960s and 1970s when the Social Democrats forsook their liberal side and lurched too far to the left. Reasonable Swedes took a stand, and Sweden changed direction.
He also points out the strength of Swedish (contemporary) liberalism:
liberal research, scholarship, and discourse requires professional liberals. On a per capita basis, Sweden probably sustains professional liberals better than any other country in Europe, usually far better, and maybe even better than England. The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv) and various foundations do a fantastic job supporting fantastic people doing fantastic work, in the heart of Stockholm, with seats in the central zone. Some of my Swedish classical liberal friends do not realize how good they’ve got it, relative to the rest of Europe.
The whole thing is well worth reading – and includes a comment on the nationalist “Swedish democrats”.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Aug 19 2019 at 11:23am
Good stuff indeed. I was with Prof. Klein in Sweden and had the same first impressions (granted, I was there with him at a conference of his choosing, so there may be selection bias, but still). It’s a beautiful country filled with beautiful people.
Philo
Aug 19 2019 at 1:06pm
Slightly discordant with Klein’s glowingly positive assessment of the political climate in Sweden: “Sweden does pretty well in the economic freedom ranking, currently 43rd of 162 in the Fraser ranking and 19th of 169 in the Heritage ranking.” Granting that it does “pretty well” in the Heritage ranking, in the Fraser ranking a more appropriate term would be ‘mediocre’.
nobody.really
Aug 19 2019 at 2:56pm
I eagerly await commentary from our Public Choice theorists, telling us that obviously this is all a facade and delusion, and that members of Sweden’s entrepreneurial class must be as self-interested and rapacious as anyone else.
Jon Murphy
Aug 19 2019 at 3:01pm
It’s not obvious to me why you think Klein’s comment about Sweden somehow underminds public choice. All public choice says is that we must represent politicians as people too (“politics without romance” as Jim Buchanan would say).
nobody.really
Aug 19 2019 at 3:18pm
Yup, Public Choice says we should represent politicians as people (“without romance”). So what do Public Choicists make of this article’s “romantic” characterization the entrepreneurial class? Are entrepreneurs NOT people? Alternatively, if we can acknowledge that entreprenures can act with noblesse oblige, why can we not entertain the same hypothesis about politicians?
Jon Murphy
Aug 19 2019 at 3:46pm
We can. Buchanan and public choice state this clearly. What you cannot do is assume, for example, that entrepreneurs are purely self-interested and conniving and prone to biases and politicians are not. You need consistent assumptions in your model.
nobody.really
Aug 19 2019 at 4:01pm
Great. So to clarify: Here’s an article about how members of the entrepreneurial class act with noblesse oblige and “assume the responsibility of using their wealth and influence wisely, most notably by not using political influence to acquire privileges against would-be competitors. [T]he private-enterprise nexus in Sweden tends to lean liberal, even in a scrupulous way.”
So, having found that entrepreneurs can behave this way, Public Choice Theory says that we are now justified in also assuming that politicians can behave this way, too–yes?
Jon Murphy
Aug 19 2019 at 4:18pm
In a model-specific context, yes.
Jon Murphy
Aug 19 2019 at 6:16pm
What public choice teaches us is that we need to use the same assumptions thoughout our models in order to be intellectually consistent.
For example, if we were to say excessive pollution exists because of self-interest and people do not face the full costs of their actions (the standard externality argument), then we cannot assume that government can simply step in and fix the problem through a tax or regulation since they would also have to be self-interested and do not face the full costs of their actions.
For example, if we were to say collective-action problems prevent an “optimal” (however we wish to define that) outcome from being achieved in the market (a la public goods), we would need to apply that same reasoning to the biggest collective-action problem of them all: government.
So, there is nothing contradictory between Dr. Klein (and my) experiences in Sweden and Public Choice economics. Nothing at all; indeed, the two mesh hand in hand quite well. Economists’ models of self-interest are not so confined as to deny fellow-feeling (or what Adam Smith called “sympathy”). As Gary Becker wrote in his excellent 1971 book “Economic Theory” (pgs. 25-26):
All we are doing is applying that essence to both government actors and individual actors.
Henri Hein
Aug 20 2019 at 4:45pm
In addition to Jon’s point, as a Public Choicist, I want to point out why I don’t see a contradiction. What Public Choice means to me is that people respond to incentives in the public sector, as well as the private sector. Incentives can be significant, but it is not an overriding force. People weigh them against their own desires and cultural values. I cannot speak for Klein, but all he seems to be saying here is that the cultural values regarding business leaders are different in Sweden from the US, both in terms of how they behave and how they are regarded.
Thaomas
Aug 20 2019 at 5:34am
The description of Swedish Liberals sounds more like US Liberals than US Libertarians/classical Liberals.
Jon Murphy
Aug 20 2019 at 6:34am
Oh? In what way(s)?
Henri Hein
Aug 20 2019 at 5:15pm
Dan Klein did not get into it, probably for good reason, but one of the points I like to make about the claims of Scandinavian Socialism is that the area has one of the longest traditions of property rights in the world. The legal and cultural institution of private property goes back even further than England’s, and for all the flirtation with socialism in the 20th century, I don’t believe property rights as a general principle was ever seriously threatened.
Comments are closed.