Södertörn University

The Swedish sports movement has gained a strong political presence in recent years, notably to do with migrants’ integration. Sport has been touted as a ‘universal’ language where individuals from diverse backgrounds can take part in something meaningful together that does not require particular linguistic skills. However, even sport can be a contested space where access is not equal for everyone.

Listen to a podcast on how some of Sweden’s policymaking successes and failures since the Cold War have been perceived in Sweden itself as well as outside the region

Listen to a podcast on the educational systems of the Nordic countries.

Scandinavian “socialism” has been oddly absent from the final stages of the recent US election. It is possible to trace the arguments for and against ‘Scandinavian’ policies of different kinds in the American left and right from the 2016 election campaign until recently. However, the “socialism” that both the American right and left previously thought they saw in Scandinavia is no longer as unequivocal after the challenges of the coronavirus and the new fault lines of a meandering election campaign.

Since the interwar years, foreign observers have regularly portrayed the Nordic countries as well functioning states, successful in solving crises, with happy populations; in short as good societies. Why did this happen? Are the Nordic countries the way they are simply because they are in a relatively safe corner of the world? Because they have plenty of natural resources and small populations? Or are there more convincing cultural explanations, such as, their strong labour movements and trade unions? Listen to these two podcasts on the Nordic Model to find out. In October 2019, the editor of nordics.info Nicola Witcombe caught up with three researchers after an academic workshop on ‘Nordic Democracy: Challenges, Threats and Possibilities’ at the Institute of Contemporary History at Södertörn University in Sweden. All of the three researchers are involved in the project 'Nordic Model in the global circulation of ideas' and are ideally placed to help us find out more about the development of the Nordic Model - and whether it really should be called ‘a model’ in the first place.

The “Nordic model” is often presented as a solution to the dominance of neoliberalism and the rise of populism. Populist tendencies within the region, including the reclaiming of nationalist identities and anti-immigration and anti-globalisation sentiment, can often be overlooked by outside observers. Whereas elsewhere economic crises encourage states to bow to market forces at the expense of democracy, the Nordics are seen as having been relatively unscathed by economic downturns. However, economic vulnerability is also felt by sections of the population in the Nordic countries who are subsequently more likely to turn to populism. Attempts to revitalise trust in political institutions e.g. citizen initiatives, are often piecemeal and insufficient. Democracy is not a ‘fate’ even for the Nordic countries; on the contrary, it is a tortuous path, the outcome of which can never be taken for granted.

Folkhem, literally meaning ‘people’s home’, is a Swedish term for what is otherwise designated as the Swedish welfare state or the Swedish model. It is even used and discussed in the context of the Nordic welfare state or the Nordic political model, and related ideas are prominent throughout the region (e.g. folkelighed, i.e. popular culture, in Denmark). The folkhem metaphor is more complex than is often acknowledged. Its political success is based on its ambiguity and broad appeal through multiple layers of meaning. For example, contemporary adherents of the folkhem concept tend to advocate a green and multicultural reconstruction of society. At the same time, the term folkhem has been adopted by populist and right wing extremist groups to designate their own idea of a closed society.

The principles and aims of the United Nations resonate in the Nordic countries, which are small welfare states with an appreciation of international law, solidarity and multilateral problem-solving. From the time of the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations) to the 1990s, the Nordic region developed and operated a caucusing and voting group with considerable authority in its own right. People from the Nordic countries have held influential positions at the United Nations, such as Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjöld in the 1950s and 1960s.

The internationalism of the Nordic countries is characterised by a general commitment to international institutions and law, agenda-setting and bridge-building between North and South, East and West alike. The Nordic countries traditionally provide high levels of development aid. These and other characteristics have elicited diverse responses, including the accusation that the Nordic countries behave like ’moral superpowers’ and that they engage in certain international issues so they are more easily able to bow out of others.

The Nordic countries have a particular parliamentary culture characterised by consensus and working across party lines. Their parliaments remain influential institutions considering the general trend towards greater executive power. The principles of parliamentary government and universal suffrage were introduced comparatively early in Norden. The world’s oldest parliaments are found in the region, in Iceland and the Faroe Islands.