"As superficially appealing as a regulated labour market is, it does not deliver prosperity or security - see the experience of continental Europe." - MonashLibertarian

In that case, please explain how the Scandinavian countries can maintain higher regulation of IR than Australia, but yet are better at creating jobs, are more productive and are wealthier than we are.

For example, Australia is ranked 10th most competitive country in the world compared to Finland (No 1), Sweden (No 3), Denmark (No 4), Iceland (No 7), and Norway (No 9).

Furthermore, Australia's unemployment rate is 5%, while Norway's is 4.6%, Sweden's 6.3%, Denmark's 4.8% and Iceland's 3.0%. Norway, Iceland and Sweden all have lower long-term unemployment rates than Australia.

It seems social democracy is alive and well in some countries at least.

Dresdener - fair arguments may be - but it helps being in the biggest richest trade block on earth! Australia as far as I'm aware has no such benefit to protect us from the cheap producing/manufacturing states to our north.

Scandanavian nations are also in some peril in the long run with competitive centres growing in Eastern Europe in Poland, Estonia, Czech R et al.

First there was one, now there are two, who should be ashamed of themselves, when money becomes your GOD, there is only one thing you know, that is you have nothing left. "Forgive them, they know not what they do"

Dresdener,

On the issue of global competitiveness you neglect to mention that the United States is 2nd and Singapore 6th - neither of which are social democracies. It also noteworthy that France sits at 30th. This seems to suggest that a countries competitiveness is more than a function of its system of government.

According to the OECD's standardised unemployment rates, the French unemployment rate is 9.1%,Finland's is 8.1% and Sweden's is 6.5%. By way of comparison, the unemployment rates the United States and Australia are 4.8% and 5.2% respectively. Therefore, its not accurate to suggest that all social democracies are better at managing unemployment than liberal democracies. However, your point re Germany is well taken and I must concede that certain social democracies have successfully coupled low unemployment with high productivity.

On the issue of prosperity, the best measure is purchasing-power-partiy which measures to real wealth per capita in countries. Whilst Norway and Denmark have relatively hight PPP per capita, Sweden and Finland are both lower than Australia and all are lower than the United States. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that all Scandanvian countries have greater wealth than Australia - some do and some do not.

I believe there are certain misconceptions about the nature of social democracy in Scandanavia. Peter Saunders (of the CIS) has noted that the welfare-to-work regimes in some Scandanavian countries are more agressive than are our own. Most of the Scandanavian countries underwent radical reform and liberalisation of their welfare model in the early '90s. Sweden and Denmark both have well-developed school voucher programs which increase the quality of education.

In short, the Scandanavian model is not as socialist as many believe nor is it as effective as many believe. To the extent that it has been tried out of Scandanavia it has failed - particularly in multicultural societies.

Monash,
What a schocking thought, some countries actually value "life" above money, France for example. They choose to live, not compete so hard, what naughty people they are, when will they learn to get into the rat race and be all consumed with money, like you. I wonder if they enjoy their lives more than you and G.T. ?

Need better politics than Clive Hamilton's proposals

Tristan Ewins was far too kind. Clive Hamilton’s “What’s Left: The Death of Social Democracy” was a crude exercise in upper-class utopianism and self interest. Hamilton crudely characterised the Left as:

- bereft of ideas
- wandering in the wilderness
- mouthing same old dogmas
- impotent and irrelevant

and the ALP as withering and dieing. But this just exposes his own political incompentancy. His project is nothing but yet another theory of managing capitalism.

Hamilton and his fellow middle-class recipients of capitalist pelf want their wealth but dream of sharing such fortune with everybody. This dream makes them happy. In the event, Hamilton produced a basic rehash of Giddens ‘Third Way’ with variations. His ‘politics of wellbeing’ and ‘politics of meaning’ does not assist the unemployed into jobs, workers out of debt, nor does it respond to Australia’s ballooning Current Account deficit and falling wages share of GDP. In general, Hamilton ignores economic structural issues.

Hamilton (and others eg David McKnight) suggest we should develop ideas, values and philosophy first, then create organisation to fit [Quarterly Essay 21, pg 52]. They misdiagnose society’s ills as being due to affluence, consumerism, and commercialism and imply if new idealistic politics is crafted, that the masses will suddenly wake up from their mistakes and come running. Hamilton believes that painting a picture of a new society will forge new politics [Quarterly Essay 21, pg 65]. This is not so.

Chris Warren
Chris.Canberra@gmail.com