Wikipedia

User:Invinciblewalnut/sandbox

< User:Invinciblewalnut

Awards and decorations

edit

Walz' military awards and decorations include:[1]

Width-44 myrtle green ribbon with width-3 white stripes at the edges and five width-1 stripes down the center; the central white stripes are width-2 apart
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Width-44 ribbon with two width-9 ultramarine blue stripes surrounded by two pairs of two width-4 green stripes; all these stripes are separated by width-2 white borders
Silver oak leaf cluster
Bronze star
Width=44 scarlet ribbon with a central width-4 golden yellow stripe, flanked by pairs of width-1 scarlet, white, Old Glory blue, and white stripes
Silver Hourglass Device Bronze M Device
Width-44 ribbon with width-6 central ultramarine blue stripe, flanked by pairs of stripes that are respectively width-4 emerald, width-3 golden yellow, width-5 orange, and width-7 scarlet
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal

One oak leaf cluster

Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal

Five oak leaf clusters

National Defense Service Medal

One service star

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal Armed Forces Reserve Medal

with silver hourglass device

Armed Forces Reserve Medal

with M device

NCO Professional Development Ribbon Army Service Ribbon Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon

Three oak leaf clusters

Minnesota Good Conduct Medal

with silver star

Minnesota State Active Duty Ribbon

One oak leaf cluster

Minnesota State Service Ribbon

One oak leaf cluster

University System of Indiana

edit

The University System of Indiana is the public university system of the US state of Indiana. Modeled after the University System of Ohio, it was established in 2024 to unify Indiana's public institutions of higher education with the goals of standardizing academic calendars, simplifying student and credit transfers between the institutions, facilitating inter-institutional research, and to allow for students to be recruited at the same time for jobs and internships. It is goverened by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education, a body of the Indiana Department of Education. The system includes all of Indiana's public university main campuses, university regional and satellite campuses, professional and graduate schools and their respective regional campuses, extension centers, and the Ivy Tech Community College System.

University main campuses

edit
Campus Location Classification Founded Enrollment Endowment Athletics
Affiliation Conference Nickname
Ball State University Muncie Research university 1918 NCAA Div. I Mid-American Cardinals

   

Indiana State University Terre Haute Doctoral/professional university 1865 NCAA Div. I Missouri Valley Sycamores
Indiana University Bloomington Bloomington Research university 1820 NCAA Div. I Big Ten
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis Research university 1969 NCAA Div. I Horizon
Purdue University West Lafayette Research university 1869 NCAA Div. I Big Ten
University of Southern Indiana Evansville Master's university 1965 NCAA Div. I Ohio Valley
Vincennes University Vincennes Baccalaureate/associate's college 1801 NJCAA Div. I Mid-West

University regional campuses

edit

Ball State, Indiana State, and Southern Indiana do not have regional campuses.

Community colleges and technical colleges

edit

Social Democratic Party of the United States

edit
Not to be confused with Social Democratic Party of America; Democratic Socialists of America; or Social Democrats, USA.
Social Democratic Party of the United States
AbbreviationSDP
Founded18 October 2021; 3 years ago (2021-10-18)
IdeologySocial democracy
Nordic model capitalism
Political positionCenter-left
International affiliationProgressive Alliance
Colors  Red
Slogan“Pro populo, per populum”
(Latin: for the people, by the people)
Seats in the Senate
70 / 100
Seats in the House of Representatives
359 / 435
State governorships
36 / 50
Seats in state upper chambers
1,213 / 1,972
Seats in state lower chambers
3,896 / 5,411
Territorial governorships
5 / 6
Seats in territorial upper chambers
58 / 97
Seats in territorial lower chambers
76 / 91
Part of a series on
Social democracy
 
History
Concepts
Variants
People
Organizations
By region
Related

The Social Democratic Party of the United States (SDP or SDP-USA in international contexts) is a center-left social democratic political party in the United States. Its party symbol is the rose.

  • support for IRV-MMP elections
  • abolish the electoral college
  • calls for independent redistricting

    • Overview and aspects

    edit
     
    Flags of the Nordic countries from left to right: Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark

    The Nordic model has been characterized as follows:[2]

    • An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare[2] in a largely tax-funded system.[3]
    • Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.[4]
    • Public pension plans.[2]
    • High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index.[5][6]
    • Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[2]
    • Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[2]
    • Low levels of corruption.[5][2] In Transparency International's 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 179 countries evaluated.[7]
    • A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace among themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[8][9] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[2] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[2]
    • High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage.[10] In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.5% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States.[11] In 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.6% in the United States.[12] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[13]
    • The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[14]
    • Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.[15] Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in comparison to the OECD average.[16]
    • Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with Denmark at 45.9% and both Finland and Sweden at 44.1%.[17] The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels.[18][19]
    • The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[20] The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.[21]

    Economic system

    edit

    The Nordic model is underpinned by a mixed-market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership,[22][23] with the exception of Norway which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[24]

    The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector, which amounts to roughly 30% of the work force, in areas such as healthcare and higher education. In Norway, Finland, and Sweden, many companies and/or industries are state-run or state-owned[25][26][27] like utilities, mail, rail transport, airlines, electrical power industry, fossil fuels, chemical industry, steel mill, electronics industry, machine industry, automotive industry, aerospace manufacturer, shipbuilding, and the arms industry.[28] In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies", while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world."[29][30] Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly capitalism", with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states, and reduced concentration of top incomes, contrasting it with the more "cut-throat capitalism" of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes, among others social inequalities.[2][31][32]

    As a result of the Sweden financial crisis of 1990–1994, Sweden implemented economic reforms that were focused on deregulation, decentralization of wage bargaining, and the strengthening of competition laws.[33] Despite being one of the most equal OECD nations, from 1985 to the 2010s Sweden saw the largest growth in income inequality among OECD economies.[34][35] Other effects of the 1990s reforms was the strong GDP per capita growth, which grew at a faster rate than the EU15 average, above EU15 average growth in the labour force participation rate, high growth in private sector employment as a share of its total labour force, and substantial growth of mutual fund saving,[36] with 4 out of 5 people aged 18–74 with fund savings.[37]

    Norway's particularities

    edit

    The state of Norway has ownership stakes in many of the country's largest publicly listed companies, owning 37% of the Oslo stock market[38] and operating the country's largest non-listed companies, including Equinor and Statkraft. In January 2013, The Economist reported that "after the second world war the government nationalised all German business interests in Norway and ended up owning 44% of Norsk Hydro's shares. The formula of controlling business through shares rather than regulation seemed to work well, so the government used it wherever possible. 'We invented the Chinese way of doing things before the Chinese', says Torger Reve of the Norwegian Business School."[38] The government also operates a sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund of Norway, whose partial objective is to prepare Norway for a post-oil future but "unusually among oil-producing nations, it is also a big advocate of human rights—and a powerful one, thanks to its control of the Nobel peace prize."[39]

    Norway is the only major economy in the West where younger generations are getting richer, with a 13% increase in disposable income for 2018, bucking the trend seen in other Western nations of Millennials becoming poorer than the generations which came before.[40]

    Influence of Lutheranism

    edit

    Some academics have theorized that Lutheranism, the dominant religious tradition of the Nordic countries, had an effect on the development of social democracy there. Schröder posits that Lutheranism promoted the idea of a nationwide community of believers and led to increased state involvement in economic and social life, allowing for nationwide welfare solidarity and economic co-ordination.[41][42][43] Esa Mangeloja says that the revival movements helped to pave the way for the modern Finnish welfare state. During that process, the church lost some of its most important social responsibilities (health care, education, and social work) as these tasks were assumed by the secular Finnish state.[44] Pauli Kettunen presents the Nordic model as the outcome of a sort of mythical "Lutheran peasant enlightenment", portraying the Nordic model as the end result of a sort of "secularized Lutheranism";[43][45] however, mainstream academic discourse on the subject focuses on "historical specificity", with the centralized structure of the Lutheran church being but one aspect of the cultural values and state structures that led to the development of the welfare state in Scandinavia.[46]

    Labour market policy

    edit

    The Nordic countries share active labour market policies as part of a social corporatist economic model intended to reduce conflict between labour and the interests of capital. This corporatist system is most extensive in Norway and Sweden, where employer federations and labour representatives bargain at the national level mediated by the government. Labour market interventions are aimed at providing job retraining and relocation.[47]

    The Nordic labour market is flexible, with laws making it easy for employers to hire and shed workers or introduce labour-saving technology. To mitigate the negative effect on workers, the government labour market policies are designed to provide generous social welfare, job retraining and relocation services to limit any conflicts between capital and labour that might arise from this process.[48]

    Nordic welfare model

    edit

    The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labour market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian, and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[49]

    While there are differences among the Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximising public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation.[50]

    Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see workfare) model while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare.[50]

    Gender equality

    edit

    When it comes to gender equality, the Nordic countries hold one of the smallest gaps in gender employment inequality of all OECD countries,[51] with less than 8 points in all Nordic countries according to International Labour Organization standards.[52] They have been at the front of the implementation of policies that promote gender equality; the Scandinavian governments were some of the first to make it unlawful for companies to dismiss women on grounds of marriage or motherhood. Mothers in Nordic countries are more likely to be working mothers than in any other region and families enjoy pioneering legislation on parental leave policies that compensate parents for moving from work to home to care for their child, including fathers.[53] Although the specifics of gender equality policies in regards to the work place vary from country to country, there is a widespread focus in Nordic countries to highlight "continuous full-time employment" for both men and women as well as single parents as they fully recognize that some of the most salient gender gaps arise from parenthood. Aside from receiving incentives to take shareable parental leave, Nordic families benefit from subsidized early childhood education and care and activities for out-of-school hours for those children that have enrolled in full-time education.[51]

    The Nordic countries have been at the forefront of championing gender equality and this has been historically shown by substantial increases in women's employment. Between 1965 and 1990, Sweden's employment rate for women in working-age (15–64) went from 52.8% to 81.0%.[52] In 2016, nearly three out of every four women in working-age in the Nordic countries were taking part in paid work. Nevertheless, women are still the main users of the shareable parental leave (fathers use less than 30% of their paid parental-leave-days), foreign women are being subjected to under-representation,[51] and Finland still holds a notable gender pay-gap; on average, women only receive 83 cents for every euro a male counterpart gets.[54]

    Poverty reduction

    edit

    The Nordic model has been successful at significantly reducing poverty.[55] In 2011, poverty rates before taking into account the effects of taxes and transfers stood at 24.7% in Denmark, 31.9% in Finland, 21.6% in Iceland, 25.6% in Norway, and 26.5% in Sweden. After accounting for taxes and transfers, the poverty rates for the same year became 6%, 7.5%, 5.7%, 7.7% and 9.7% respectively, for an average reduction of 18.7 p.p.[56] Compared to the United States, which has a poverty level pre-tax of 28.3% and post-tax of 17.4% for a reduction of 10.9 p.p., the effects of tax and transfers on poverty in all the Nordic countries are substantially bigger.[56] In comparison to France (27 p.p. reduction) and Germany (24.2 p.p. reduction), the taxes and transfers in the Nordic countries are smaller on average.[56]

    Social democracy

    edit
     
    Vote percentage over time of the main social democratic parties in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway[57]
      Labour Party (Norway)
      Swedish Social Democratic Party
      Social Democrats (Denmark)
      Social Democratic Party of Finland

    Social democrats have played a pivotal role in shaping the Nordic model, with policies enacted by social democrats being pivotal in fostering the social cohesion in the Nordic countries.[58] Among political scientists and sociologists, the term social democracy has become widespread to describe the Nordic model due to the influence of social democratic party governance in Sweden and Norway, in contrast to other classifications such as Christian democratic, liberal, Mediterranean, radical, and hybrid, based on consistency levels ("pure", "medium-high consistency" and "medium consistency").[59] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism.[60][61]

    While countries such as Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have been categorized as social democratic at least once, the Nordic countries have been the only ones to be constantly categorized as such. In a review by Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser of works about the different models of welfare states, apart from Belgium and the Netherlands, categorized as "medium-high socialism", the Scandinavian countries analyzed (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) were the only ones to be categorized by sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen as "high socialism", which is defined as socialist attributes and values (equality and universalism) and the social democratic model, which is characterized by "a high level of decommodification and a low degree of stratification. Social policies are perceived as 'politics against the market.'" They summarized the social democratic model as being based on "the principle of universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of autonomy, limiting the reliance on family and market."[59]

    As of the 1990s, the Nordic identity has been explained with cultural, not political factors; by the 2010s, politics has been re-entering the conversation on the Nordic identity. According to Johan Strang, cultural explanations benefits neoliberalism, during whose rise the cultural phenomenon coincided. Strang states that "[t]he Social Democratic model, which was still very much alive during the Cold War, has now been abandoned, and other explanations for Nordic success have been sought to replace it."[62]


    References

    edit
    1. ^ Association of the United States Army (2013). "Once a Soldier... Always a Soldier: Soldiers in the 113th Congress" (PDF). Retrieved 2 October 2024.
    2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Andersen, Torben M.; Holmström, Bengt; Honkapohja, Seppo; Korkman, Sixten; Söderström, Hans Tson; Vartiainen, Juhana (2007). The Nordic Model: Embracing globalization and sharing risks (PDF). Yliopistopaino, Helsinki: Taloustieto Oy. ISBN 978-951-628-468-5. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
    3. ^ "Healthcare in Sweden". Sweden. 12 June 2015. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
    4. ^ "Economy Rankings". Doing Business. The World Bank Group. 2016. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
    5. ^ a b March 20, 2020. The Nordic Exceptionalism: What Explains Why the Nordic Countries Are Constantly Among the Happiest in the World. WHR 2020. Chapter 7. Retrieved: 2 September 2021.
    6. ^ "Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in health?". EIU.com. Retrieved 2 February 2021.
    7. ^ "Corruption Perceptions Index 2015". Transparency International. Full Table and Rankings. Retrieved 1 January 2017.
    8. ^ "The Nordic Model". In focus 2001. Nordic Labour Journal. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
    9. ^ Anders Kjellberg (2017) "Self-regulation versus State Regulation in Swedish Industrial Relations". In Mia Rönnmar and Jenny Julén Votinius (eds.) Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning. Lund: Juristförlaget i Lund 2017, pp. 357–383.
    10. ^ Bruhn, Anders; Kjellberg, Anders; Sandberg, Åke (2013). Sandberg, Åke (ed.). "A New World of Work Challenging Swedish Unions" (PDF). Stockholm: 126–186. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    11. ^ "Trade Union Density". OECD StatExtracts. OECD. 2013. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
    12. ^ "Collective bargaining coverage". OECD. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
    13. ^ Kjellberg, Anders (4 April 2006). "The Swedish unemployment insurance – will the Ghent system survive?" (pdf). Transfer European Review of Labour and Research; Quarterly Review of the Etui Research Department. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research. 12: 87–98. doi:10.1177/102425890601200109. ISSN 1024-2589. S2CID 153819218. Retrieved 26 July 2016 – via Lund University.
    14. ^ Wearing, David (22 May 2014). "Where's the worst place to be a worker? Most of the world". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 July 2016.
    15. ^ "Index of Economic Freedom - Countries". Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage Foundation. 2008. Archived from the original on 25 December 2008. Retrieved 26 July 2016.
    16. ^ Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries. OECD. 2008. p. 233. doi:10.1787/9789264044197-en. ISBN 978-92-64-04418-0 – via Keepeek 360.
    17. ^ "OECD Revenue Statistics".
    18. ^ "The Nordic model is about more than high taxes – CapX". 15 January 2015.
    19. ^ "How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending – Tax Foundation". 10 June 2015.
    20. ^ Gregoire, Carolyn (1 August 2015). "The Happiest Countries In The World". The Huffington Post (published 10 September 2013). Retrieved 27 July 2016.
    21. ^ Rankin, Jennifer (20 March 2017). "Happiness is on the wane in the US, UN global report finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 August 2017.
    22. ^ Sachs, Jeffrey (2006). "Revisiting the Nordic Model: Evidence on Recent Macroeconomic Performance". Perspectives on the Performance of the Continental Economies. Center for Capitalism & Society, Venice Summer Institute. pp. 387–412. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.456.340. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262015318.003.0012. ISBN 9780262015318. First, like the Anglo-Saxon economies, the Nordic economies are overwhelmingly private-sector owned, open to trade, and oriented to international markets. Financial, labor, and product market forces operate powerfully throughout non-state sector. In short, these are capitalist economies. ... Second, there is no single Nordic model, and still less, an unchanging Nordic model. What has been consistently true for decades is a high level of public social outlays as a share of national income, and a sustained commitment to social insurance and redistributive social support for the poor, disabled, and otherwise vulnerable parts of the population.
    23. ^ McWhinney, James E. (25 June 2013). "The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons". Investopedia. Retrieved 16 September 2015. The Nordic model is a term coined to capture the unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits that have given rise to a society that enjoys a host of top-quality services, including free education and free healthcare, as well as generous, guaranteed pension payments for retirees. These benefits are funded by taxpayers and administered by the government for the benefit of all citizens.
    24. ^ Cite error: The named reference Norway: The rich cousin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    25. ^ "State Shareholdings in Finland". Valtioneuvoston kanslia. Prime Minister's Office/Ministry of Trade and Industry. 2006. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    26. ^ "State-owned enterprises". Regeringskansliet. Government Offices of Sweden. 7 November 2014. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    27. ^ "The State Ownership Report" (PDF). Regjeringen. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries. 2019. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    28. ^ Bruening, Matt (5 August 2017). "Nordic Socialism Is Realer Than You Think". People's Policy Project. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    29. ^ Cite error: The named reference Economist leaders was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    30. ^ "The secret of their success". The Economist. 31 January 2013. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    31. ^ Hopkin, Jonathan; Lapuente, Victor; Moller, Lovisa (29 January 2014). "Lower levels of inequality are linked with greater innovation in economies". London School of Economics. Retrieved 27 June 2016.
    32. ^ Lane, Kenworthy (2013). Social Democratic America. New York City: Oxford University Press. pp. 88–93. ISBN 9780199322527.
    33. ^ Erlandsen, Espen; Lundsgaard, Jens (2007). "How Regulatory Reforms in Sweden Have Boosted Productivity". OECD Economics Department Working Paper (577). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/084244078600.
    34. ^ Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising (paperback ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. 2011. ISBN 9789264111639. Retrieved 30 June 2021.
    35. ^ Nilsson, Patricia (29 August 2018). "Swedish society's big divisions — in 6 charts". Financial Times. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    36. ^ Hoikkala, Hanna (22 May 2019). "Swedes Become World Champions With 100% Stashing Cash in Funds". BloombergQuint. Bloomberg News. Retrieved 31 August 2021.
    37. ^ Heyman, Fredrik; Norbäck, Pehr-Johan; Persson, Lars (24 June 2019). "The Turnaround of the Swedish Economy: Lessons from Large Business Sector Reforms". The World Bank Research Observer. 34 (2): 274–308. doi:10.1093/wbro/lky007. hdl:10986/35085. ISSN 0257-3032.
    38. ^ a b "Norway: The rich cousin – Oil makes Norway different from the rest of the region, but only up to a point". The Economist. 2 February 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2016.
    39. ^ Cite error: The named reference Economist was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    40. ^ Savage, Maddy (10 July 2018). "Unlike most millennials, Norway's are rich". BBC News. Retrieved 11 July 2018.
    41. ^ Schröder, Martin (2013). Integrating Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare State Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 96, 144–145, 149, 155, 157.
    42. ^ Markkola, Pirjo (2011). Kettunen, Pauli; Petersen, Klaus (eds.). "The Lutheran Nordic Welfare States". Beyond Welfare State Models. Transnational Historical Perspectives on Social Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing: 102–118. ISBN 9781849809603 – via Google Books.
    43. ^ a b Kettunen, Pauli (2010). "The Sellers of Labour Power as Social Citizens: A Utopian Wage Work Society in the Nordic Visions of Welfare" (PDF). NordWel Studies in Historical Welfare State Research: 16–45.
    44. ^ Sinnemäki, Kaius; Portman, Anneli; Tilli, Jouni; Nelson, Robert H, eds. (2019). On the Legacy of Lutheranism in Finland: Societal Perspectives. doi:10.21435/sfh.25. ISBN 9789518581355.
    45. ^ Nelson, Robert H. (2017). Lutheranism and the Nordic Spirit of Social Democracy: A Different Protestant Ethic. Bristol: ISD. pp. 21, 121. ISBN 978-87-7184-416-0 – via Google Books.
    46. ^ Hilson, Mary (2008). The Nordic Model: Scandinavia since 1945. London: Reaktion Books. pp. 112–133. ISBN 9781861894618 – via Google Books.
    47. ^ Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser Jr., J. Barkley (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-0262182348. Liberal corporatism is largely self-organized between labor and management, with only a supporting role for government. Leading examples of such systems are found in small, ethnically homogeneous countries with strong traditions of social democratic or labor party rule, such as Sweden's Nordic neighbors. Using a scale of 0.0 to 2.0 and subjectively assigning values based on six previous studies, Frederic Pryor in 1988 found Norway and Sweden the most corporatist at 2.0 each, followed by Austria at 1.8, the Netherlands at 1.5, Finland, Denmark, and Belgium at 1.3 each, and Switzerland and West Germany at 1.0 each. ... [W]ith the exception of Iceland, all the Nordic countries have higher taxes, larger welfare states, and greater corporatist tendencies than most social market economies.
    48. ^ McWhinney, James E. (25 June 2013). "The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons". Investopedia. Retrieved 16 September 2015. The model is underpinned by a capitalist economy that encourages creative destruction. While the laws make it is easy for companies to shed workers and implement transformative business models, employees are supported by generous social welfare programs.
    49. ^ Esping-Andersen, G. (1991). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    50. ^ a b The Nordic Council. "About the Nordic welfare model". Norden. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. Retrieved 2 April 2014.
    51. ^ a b c "Is the Last Mile the Longest?" (PDF). Nordic Council of Ministers. May 2018 – via OECD.
    52. ^ a b "Which countries have the highest gender gap in the workplace?". International Labor Organization. 6 June 2017. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
    53. ^ Moustgaard, Ulrikke (19 October 2017). "Nordic family policies – between quotas and freedom of choice". Nordic Information on Gender. Archived from the original on 23 May 2019. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
    54. ^ "Thursday's papers: Finland's gender pay gap, our duty to help, and cheaper microbreweries". YLE. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
    55. ^ Drum, Kevin (26 September 2013). "We Can Reduce Poverty If We Want To. We Just Have To Want To". Mother Jones. Retrieved 5 October 2013.
    56. ^ a b c "Compare your country – Income distribution and poverty". OECD.
    57. ^ Brandal, Nik; Bratberg, Øivind; Thorsen, Dag (2013). The Nordic model of social democracy. Springer. p. 2. doi:10.1057/9781137013279. ISBN 978-1-349-43669-9.
    58. ^ Brandal, Nik; Bratberg, Øivind; Thorsen, Dag (2013). The Nordic model of social democracy. Springer. p. vi & 159. doi:10.1057/9781137013279. ISBN 978-1-349-43669-9.
    59. ^ a b Ferragina, Emanuele; Seeleib-Kaiser, Martin (October 2011). "Welfare Regime Debate: Past, Present, Futures?" (PDF). Policy and Politics. 39 (4). Policy Press: 583–611. doi:10.1332/030557311X603592.
    60. ^ Kenworthy, Lane (January 2014). "America's Social Democratic Future". Foreign Affairs (January/February 2014). Retrieved 2 April 2014.
    61. ^ Kenworthy, Lane (March 1, 2016). "Social Democracy". The Next System Project. Retrieved April 27, 2020. The chief goals social democracy attempts to realize, and that distinguish it from other actually-existing capitalisms, are economic security, equality (low inequality) of opportunity, and shared prosperity. ... Modern social democracy consists, to put it simply, of market capitalism plus generous and employment-friendly social policy... .
    62. ^ Cite error: The named reference Liukas 2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Invinciblewalnut/sandbox&oldid=1248978729"