The last time I looked at this issue the cogent point raised (which Fred addresses) is that the overall GDP cost of the Scandanavian approach to unemployment and social disadvantage is actually lower than the Anglo approach, ie, this aspect of the Scandos approach is actually more cost effective than ours.

In this context it seems to me unrelated to tax levels or IR systems.

Shorbe,

European houses are small because there is not much space. The Netherlands has only a million less people than Australia and is half the size of Tasmania. Land is very expensive and building up is the cheap option. The ultimate luxury in Holland is to live in a "bungalow", a house without a staircase.

The fact that almost everyone in Australia can live in a house with a garden (and the nice climate) goes along way towards our low misery index.

Cost effective is a really nice word when it applies to good "social investment" strategies which work harder to give meaning to being a nation "inclusive" with a whole social strata.

I look forward to your next article Argy, and I found the comments excellent as points made in "checking" against the opportunity we are loosing in Australia, while we continue to ignore our all-of-nation-knowledge.

Social Capital is another factor that binds a nation-economy. It could in Australia, given we have the people and technology, help bridge the lines as suggested above; where it is said that Nordic Communities have closer geographical ties which make it easier for them.

I believe Australia moblitiy has improved much since the debates of the "lucky country" .. but I feel the divide in knowledge, skills and income is occurring wider than what should be tolerated by those that have a chair to say.

If I were PM, I would take on board the facts under-written in this article and demand a revision of thought - back to the late-1970s. This is when I felt Australia was debating "good" and "innovative" public policies, and where there was a real suggestion of engaging more people on community development aspects through "public works".

Instead - we are using our unemployed with a harsh-stick, we-use-them-when-we-need-them... especially low-skilled... and then we abolish-the-programme, displace-those-workers (rather than reward them with fore-thought-through another useful development... A reminder for each displaced worker, they are "no-one" in a country that fails to address their value.

Look at CYPLUS in Cape York, the way Aboriginal workers (people I know) were used to engage their communities in various - new - "programmes" - then once their "cultural social capital" (liaison protocols) were transferred... they were told there is "no more funding for their jobs".

The CDEP (recent events) appear to be the same. Little thought preparation for the young families isolated in these communities.... (the-ones-already-at-risk!)

We have a bi-polar situation in all areas of government when it comes to strategies that suit social policies of the day in employment.

Freddy, I assumed that when you included Austria in your list of Nordics that Germany would be there as well. It seems the term nordic is, in this case, to apply to any country with data that supports your argument.

And it must be said that Norway cannot be lumped into the same category as Sweden or Finland because it has a small population and a great deal of OIL. Their low unemployment rate of 3.7 % may have quite abit to do with the fact that they export their unemployed. Norwegians can access free education and support, fully funded by the state, for courses anywhere in the world.

And it is no surprise, then, that here in sunny Queensland we have a large cohort of Norwegian "students" of all ages who combine lifestyle choices under the education umbrella.

To suggest that such a policy could or should be implemented in australia would be a recipe for a Balance of Payments Deficit of astronomical proportions. Oil exporting nations have strong motivation to export funds to manage exchange rates so other domestic industries can remain competitive.

But when we have that problem here, then, by all means, make the suggestion again.

Perseus, the terminology I used (Northern European, shortened to Nordics) was the one used by The Economist ("Intricate workings" July 13) and the countries included in the Nordic group are the same as those selected by the conservative Economist, which drew very similar conclusions to mine. So I am in good company. Give up Perseus on this point. There are far more important issues to debate.

On your other comment, please note that according to the OECD July 2006 and using a “commonly used definitions” basis, Sweden had an unemployment rate of 5.8% in 2005 and the estimate for 2006 is 4.2%. The comparable figures for Australia are 5.0% and 4.7% and for USA 5.1% and 4.7%. Sweden also currently has a high ratio of employment to working age population, an external current account surplus of 6.7% of GDP (compared with big deficits in US and here), a budget surplus of 2.2% of GDP (larger than Australia's and compared with big deficit in US), a positive household saving ratio (ours is negative), an inflation rate below ours and a growth rate in real GDP per capita which (on the last count) exceeds ours. And I could give you similar statistics for the others. The Nordics do really have successful economies to match their low inequality and high social mobility. That does not mean I would prefer to live there than in sunny Queensland.

Perseus, shame about YOUR facts. Germany is not a Nordic country. These are only Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland (and sometimes Finland at a pinch with its non-Nordic, Uralic language). And also in another post, you seem to think that the Normans took England from Celts; no, they took it from Saxons (and Danes who had taken northern England from Saxons) who in turn had taken it from Celts about 500 years earlier.