Sweden is characterised by very high state spending as a proportion of GDP (45-50%+), high taxes, highly educated, superb social welfare, and as with the other Scandanavian economies comes high on the international 'quality-of-life' rankings. It is also, as Karen said, a largely homogeneous population.
So maybe that's a part of the answer - keep the population low and a country is simply easier to manage and more likely to be better run? Sounds like an argument for more state independence to me.
But you simply called for states where government-mandated and controlled investment created long-term steady employment ; I gave examples. There aren't many modern cases where nations have been sufficiently stable to allow this, and democratic elections haven't really helped in that they force changes of government and so change direction.
How about West Germany, 1950-1990? Would that do? Or going back a while further, ancient Sumer, which had major state planning to irrigate its fields and store grain against famine?
As an aside, Norway's petroleum reserves were dwarfed by those enjoyed by Texas. It's how those reserves were apportioned and managed that makes the difference. Norway limits extraction, still, and puts away I believe half of the profits to fund the future welfare of its citizens... that's not size or homogeneity, that's just prudence, planning and collective wisdom <g> |
