I strongly suspect that you have this very idealised outlook of what social democracy is all about, because you are in North America, and from over there from a distance it must look to you like social democracy is actually some sort of coherent and comprehensive ideology with a real economic plan, a plan that goes beyond muddling along with what already exists
in whatever society it happens to crop up in. It isn't.
Notice how in that wiki you linked, there are ten bullet points, four of them which are directly economics-related, three of those four points being extremely vague
, and one of them being structurally impossible
? There is a reason for that.
Also, look at the bottom where they have the "criticism" section. I've never seen that before, but isn't it interesting how close those criticisms are to the ones that I have made?
Rei Murasame previously wrote:One of the chief criticisms of social democracy is that it doesn't move anything, it simply adapts itself to whatever the prevailing economic wind happens to be at the time, so it seems to move while actually standing firmly in place in its ideological role.
wiki wrote:rather than changing the world, social democracy merely changed itself to accommodate its tactics.
Rei Murasame previously wrote:as far as I understand it 'social democracy' is actually the adaptation and commodification of welfare provision to American Neoliberal market conditions.
wiki wrote:social democratic programs maintain the capitalist system (and therefore retains its fundamental issues, such as cyclical fluctuations and social contradictions)
But all that aside, the reason that I know your previous lists are measuring for the effects of corporatism and not actually the presence or non-presence of social democracy, is because your list measures GDP per capita
, which is only going to be spread around as nicely as you've observed in those countries, when corporatist wage-bargaining structures
are in place and operating properly. Sometimes that might happen to occur
under a social democratic regime, but that doesn't mean that social democracy is causing
And that's why I linked to the paper "Corporatism in small North-West European countries 1970-2006: Business as usual, decline, or a new phenomenon?"
, because without that context it becomes impossible to describe the process that really caused those particular countries to float into the top 10 in your GDP per capita lists back on page one
of this topic.