NBER Working Paper, May 2010
The extent of social expenditures in the U.S. and the Nordic Countries is compared in the early 1900s and again in the early 2000s. The common view that America spends much less on social welfare than the Nordic countries does not survive closer inspection when we consider the differences in the structures of social expenditures. The standard comparison examines gross social expenditures. After adjustments for direct and indirect taxes paid, the net social expenditures in the Nordic countries are much closer to American levels. Inclusion of mandatory and private social expenditures raises the American share of GDP devoted to social expenditures to rank among the middle of the Nordic countries. Per capita net public social expenditures in the U.S. rank behind only Sweden. Add in the private spending, and per capita spending in the U.S. is higher than in all of the Nordic countries. Finally, I document the enormous diversity across time and place in public social expenditures in the U.S. in the early 1900s and circa 1990.
Jose Tapia Granados
Social Science & Medicine, forthcoming
Recent publications have argued that the welfare state is an important determinant of population health, and that social democracy in office and higher levels of health expenditure promote health progress. In the period 1950-2000, Greece, Portugal, and Spain were the poorest market economies in Europe, with a fragmented system of welfare provision, and many years of military or authoritarian right-wing regimes. In contrast, the five Nordic countries were the richest market economies in Europe, governed mostly by center or center-left coalitions often including the social democratic parties, and having a generous and universal welfare state. In spite of the socioeconomic and political differences, and a large gap between the five Nordic and the three southern nations in levels of health in 1950, population health indicators converged among these eight countries. Mean decadal gains in longevity of Portugal and Spain between 1950 and 2000 were almost three times greater than gains in Denmark, and about twice as great as those in Iceland, Norway and Sweden during the same period. All this raises serious doubts regarding the hypothesis that the political regime, the political party in office, the level of health care spending, and the type of welfare state exert major influences on population health. Either these factors are not major determinants of mortality decline, or their impact on population health in Nordic countries was more than offset by other health-promoting factors present in Southern Europe.