I found it interesting how they praise the privatisation route for schools and hospitals etc. We clearly see this doesn't benifit the masses from the US model.<p>And to criticise Norway for paying out more in benifit to the lower end of society compared to other OECD, why is this bad? It simply means they are paying out less in other areas but what are these and why is it a negative?<p>Personally I found this a weak article. I expect better fact driven discussion from the economist rather than a piece that seems to want to find a reason to bash a country for popular reading.
Agree with all the other comments, super light on facts and tried to apply an ideological "solution" where there is no issue. Surprised The Economist printed it.<p>The Norwegians are sitting pretty on top of world's largest sovereign wealth fund, which holds 1.3% of the world's listed stocks. Their oil&gas tech industry is taking a beating, yes, as are every nation and business who depend on the oil&gas industry, but I don't think the Norwegians will starve any time soon. If new revenue from their oil industry stoppe tomorrow they would still be alright.<p>I don't see how there is a "weakness" in their model or how this calls for privatisation of anything. If anything, their SWF's exposure to QE inflated stock markets is a bigger risk.
While there's no doubt that there's a lot of fluff that has built up simply because we can/could afford it, this article doesn't really touch on any of them. Instead it seems to, among other things, bash state-owned corporations that are doing very well and are in no need of reform.<p>In general, it's a very weak article. Someone opened Wikipedia and saw some numbers that don't agree with how they think economies should be run, and then wrote about that. It's hard to fire employees who are slacking off, especially in government, but there's not a mention of it. But I guess that wasn't on Wikipedia, but the work-week was.<p>The turn to the left is mostly aa swinging pendulum thing, but I don't dread it, as the Labour party usually has a better grasp of economics than anyone else.<p>What's happening is a restructuring born of the decline in one sector with a time-delay until the others can absorb the sacked employees. It's not a crisis in government.
I think norway was super smart. They took their oil money and invested in non oil things. Now when oil prices are low they can use the reserve to help pump their economy. I think they are actually doing things right.
I stopped taking this article seriously when they cited a 37-hour work-week as an indicator that the state is "undermining the work ethic." After finishing the article, it really sounds more like the author is prescribing their favourite solution for something that may not even be a problem. This is one third party talking to another third party about someone else's "problem". Basically gossip and just as useless.
It's weird that the article didn't mention the large tax reforms and other measures in the recently announced 2016 budget, seems like that would be obvious to include in an article like this.
What rubbish. The article talks about the welfare state as if it is inherently bad. Their solutions? Surprise, surprise! Freer markets. Obvious bias here.<p>Unsurprising, of course. The Economist is owned wholly by a few billionaire families.
Weird article.<p>That said, the NOK, a petrocurrency, has been hit hard relative to other petrocurrencies. Over the LTM, USD's up 24%, 18% and 15% v. NOK, AUD, and CAD, respectively[1].<p>[1]<a href="https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1444603138934&chddm=357679&cmpto=CURRENCY:USDAUD;CURRENCY:USDCAD&cmptdms=0;0&q=CURRENCY:USDNOK&ntsp=1&ei=z-QaVtniG8GljAHRnZDYDw" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...</a>