Andrew Scott, from Deakin University, comes from the leftist tradition, as well as having an impressive academic background writing about Australian politics and social policy. In this important and relevant study, he seeks to demonstrate the continuing usefulness of looking to the Nordic nations as a model for some aspects of social policy. (Scott uses the term ‘Nordic’ because of his inclusion of Finland, which shares many aspects of the Scandinavian model, despite some significant historical and linguistic differences.)

In broad terms, the nations of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have a combined population roughly akin to Australia’s and have developed social policies and welfare nets that seem both more efficient and more equitable than those in Australia. Over the past decade, they, like Australia, have gone through considerable shifts in both demography and political culture; Sweden now accepts more asylum seekers than Australia, and its foreign-born population is rising rapidly. Anti-immigration parties are also strong in both Sweden and Denmark, as anyone who watched that remarkable Danish television series, Borgen, will be well aware.

Nor are the Nordic countries any longer the preserve of social democratic governments. The recently elected Swedish social democraticgovernment has been unable to hold a coalition together and faces elections in March; Denmark’s centre-left government also faces elections this year; Finland is governed by a broad coalition of parties, and Norway currently has a conservative minority government. One of the lessons we might learn from the Nordics is that good government can result from coalitions between several parties. Indeed Scott points out that in the Norwegian and Swedish legislatures members are seated according to regional proximity rather than party allegiance, which he claims ‘makes it less likely for politicians to artificially exaggerate differences with opponents for short term advantage’.

Drawing on something of a Labor tradition, Scott has turned to the Nordic countries for specific policy initiatives, and provides four detailed case studies. He looks to Sweden for its various child-focused policies, including lower child mortality, better support for child care, and parental leave; to Finland for its first-class system of public education; to Denmark for its policies around unemployment and retraining; and to Norway for its taxation and regulation of the resources boom.

There are important lessons in each of these case studies. Finland, for example, discourages private schools, which are forbidden from charging fees, so that the deep class inequalities perpetuated by the bifurcated school system in Australia cannot arise. It also demands more of teachers, whose level of preparation far exceeds that here. Denmark is considerably more generous to its unemployed, with the result that it is less likely to create the underclass that is clearly emerging within many less privileged parts of Australia, both rural and urban.

Most important perhaps are the lessons from Norway, even if the wealth of the country may be currently declining with the global collapse of oil prices. According to Scott, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is far more successful than the much more restricted Future Fund established by Peter Costello as federal treasurer. The seeming decline of the resources boom makes the lessons from Norway somewhat bitter reading in light of the current Australian government’s inability to find politically acceptable savings and revenue increases.

In this last case study of Norway, Scott makes explicit what Labor leaders are too reluctant to acknowledge: namely, that Australian tax revenues are too low to support the level of services and welfare which most Australians favour. The Nordic countries are among the most highly taxed in the world; Australia – despite the constant complaints from the right – is one of the lowest.

Scott, drawing on research by Shaun Wilson, points out that most Australians accept the argument that taxation should not be lowered at the expense of government services. Yet since the 1980s the Labor Party has failed consistently to make this argument, preferring at best to tinker with some of the problems of the tax system and to echo neo-liberal rhetoric about the desirability of cutting back on taxes.

Yet, as Scott demonstrates, higher taxes can also allow for greater freedoms; Australians may pay lower taxes but they work considerably more – up to five hours a week longer than do Danes. The Nordic countries are far more generous in their provision of foreign aid; nor do they seem to spend significantly less than Australia on military expenditures, although current figures are hard to find and will be distorted by greater spending on security and overseas commitments.

It would have been useful had Scott considered this as part of his general argument for increased government spending; defining security in narrow military terms can lead to governments misallocating resources in very costly ways. Scott acknowledges that the Nordic nations are more concerned with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions than Australia, but he does not sufficiently link this to their overall patterns of government policies and regulations.

Green Northern Lights in Ruka, Finland, 2011 (photograph by Timo Newton-Syms via Wikimedia Commons)

Northern Lights is an important intervention in current Australian policy debates. Unfortunately, it is written in leaden prose, and lacks the narrative skills that might appeal to readers beyond policy wonks and ALP members. The book takes its title from the northern lights that illuminate the winter skies of Scandinavia. But there is an echo, as well, of Ben Chifley’s ‘light on the hill’, and a gentle reminder that, for many Australians, Labor no longer offers the vision of a better life summed up in that phrase.