El modelo nórdico

Más sobre un tema que ya tocamos varias veces por acá.

Cuando nuestro interlocutor progre se queda sin argumentos, generalmente a los cinco minutos de charla, y está a punto de admitir su error, el último manotazo de ahogado para demostrar que el socialismo sí funciona suele ser apelar a los países nórdicos, especialmente a Suecia, Noruega, Dinamarca y Finlandia.

“Lo que pasa es que cuando yo hablo de “socialismo” no me refiero ni a la ex Unión Soviética, ni a la ex Alemania Oriental, ni a Vietnam hasta la década del 70, ni siquiera a la Cuba o a la Corea del Norte actual, sino a Suecia y Noruega”, nos aclaran. Mira vos.

¿Puede un país como EEUU beneficiarse adoptando algunos de los aspectos del “modelo nórdico"? Tal vez, si con “algunos de los aspectos” nos referimos exclusivamente a mercados abiertos, bajos niveles de regulación, una defensa irrestricta del derecho de propiedad y monedas estables.

¿Es el “modelo nórdico” una buena idea para un país como Argentina? Creo que no. La Argentina es un país pobre. Una de las maneras más eficientes de conseguir que lo siga siendo por mucho tiempo es condenarlo a solventar un estado que se consume la mitad de lo que produce la economia:

Some policymakers in the United States and Europe argue that it is possible to enjoy economic growth and also have a large welfare state. These advocates for bigger government claim that the so called Nordic Model offers the best of both worlds.

This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Economic performance in Nordic nations is lagging, and excessive government is the most likely explanation. The public sector in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Iceland consumes, on average, more than 48 percent of economic output. Total government outlays in the United States, by contrast, are less than 37 percent of gross domestic product. Revenue comparisons are even more striking. Tax receipts average more than 45 percent of GDP in Nordic nations, a full 20 percentage points higher than the aggregate tax burden in the United States.

This bigger burden of government hurts Nordic competitiveness, both because government spending consumes resources that could be more efficiently allocated by market forces and because the accompanying high tax rates discourage productive behavior. A smaller state sector is one reason why the United States is more prosperous. Per capita GDP in the United States is more than 15 percent higher than it is in the Nordic nations. The gap is even larger when comparing disposable income, private consumption, and other measures that reflect living standards.