Americans are once again interested in debating economic systems.

The 2016 presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, reignited a debate about capitalism and socialism that some believed had died with the Soviet Union. Younger Americans are now divided on which system they like best.

Unfortunately, the debate over what these terms actually mean has become hopelessly muddled. Without a Soviet bloc to provide an official alternative to capitalism, people cast about for examples that fit their desired narrative.

Noah Smith mug

Noah Smith

Self-appointed defenders of capitalism will point to the economic failures of the USSR, China and North Korea, or to the more recent economic disaster in Venezuela as proof positive of socialism’s defects

Socialism’s champions tend to rebut these charges by pointing to the successes of the Scandinavian countries. Sanders himself regularly praises Denmark, and occasionally Sweden, as examples of what he would like to achieve in the U.S., while others prefer Norway.

But American socialists have, on occasion, received pushback from residents of those countries — in 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen stated bluntly that Denmark was a market economy rather than a socialist one.

So is Sanders right, or is Rasmussen? Are the Scandinavian countries socialist or capitalist? The truth, unfortunately, is much more nuanced and complex. There will never be a clear, simple definition of socialism or capitalism, because there are multiple ways that a government can try to intervene in markets.

Markets aren’t perfect. They generate unequal outcomes, and often unfair ones, and they are subject to numerous inefficiencies.

Governments can try to remedy these problems in a number of ways. They can provide services directly, as with the U.K.’s National Health Service. They can own businesses, as China does with state-owned enterprises. They can write regulations to restrain or promote various forms of market activity. They can sanction and empower various institutions like unions that counter the power of business. And they can use taxes and spending to redistribute income and wealth.

But governments don’t have to do all of these things at once.

In Scandinavia, for example, there are a lot of government-provided services, a lot of redistribution and strong unions, but a relatively light regulatory touch otherwise.

In a recent report, J.P. Morgan Asset Management researcher Michael Cembalest breaks down the Nordic model using various indicators from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

As he notes, the Nordic countries (in which he includes the Netherlands) generally have fewer capital controls and trade barriers than the U.S. They also score quite highly on indexes of property rights and business freedom.

These indicators are compiled by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that might have reason to want to give high rankings to rich countries in order to make business freedom look more attractive. But rankings from the OECD confirm the general picture of Scandinavia as a lightly regulated place. Interestingly, the indicators also show higher direct state control of industry in the U.S.

Labor markets are a different matter, however; Scandinavian countries generally make it harder to fire workers than the U.S. does. Unions and collective bargaining are also stronger.

Interestingly, though, Cembalest finds that labor in Nordic countries claims a slightly smaller share of national income than in the U.S., suggesting that the impact of pro-business policies in those countries might outweigh the impact of labor protections when measured in purely monetary terms.

The Scandinavian countries, of course, have much higher taxes and spend more on social services.

Whether these various policy differences are large enough to constitute different systems is open to debate. Some economists consider them all merely varieties of capitalism.

The picture is complicated by the fact that countries change their policies over time.

American socialists like Bernie Sanders may be pining for a much more interventionist Scandinavian model like that of the mid-20th century that has since changed dramatically.

The spirited online debates about socialism and capitalism ignore and obscure the multiple dimensions of policy, and thus make it harder to think about concrete ways to fix the problems in the U.S. system.

But one thing is for certain — the dichotomy of social versus capitalism, inherited from the ideological battles of the past two centuries, is badly out of date.

Get News Alerts delivered directly to you.

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.


(4) comments


Bo, I typoed a baddie...society chooses, only by majority...did not mean it does not choose, which it does only as it adjusts to outside influences (I hope) not beliefs, in the strategic sense of survival.


Bo, I do not think any society can choose its direction. Besides, numbers, sheer numbers of people make the difference...the majority always rules, unless, of course, Mother Nature steps in and removes offenders and the world evolves without us smartie-pants critters!

Which is what we are doing, as we bicker over dumb stuff and choose idoit leaders. We miss the forest for the trees!

What is worse than an idiot? Answer" Idiots who think they are smart and listen to no one!

Someone commented that to POTUS as a liar who wants people around him who agree with him? Obviously, to me anyway, this is foolish. POTUS needs truth, not bullroar, for our sakes.

And, if a person is a liar, and has people around him who "brown-nose" and lie? What? Liars who lie to liars cannot help anything or person, seems to me!


Hive - You are correct “Capitalism and Socialism are economic”. So the choice is between a capitalistic or socialistic economy. I chose capitalistic economy, as are 100,000 illegal immigrants each and every month. Why else would they leave a socialistic economy to come here?


Capitalism and Socialism are economic; "Democratic" and "Nationalism" are not remotely related.

Is the choice, if it comes to that, economic or social?

Will an economic choice improve the social?

Will a social choice emprove economics?

Or, given excessive population numbers, is the difference still important?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.