In The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life (2016), Anu Partanen argues that Nordic countries have preserved a model of freedom once practiced in the United States. Comparing the U.S. before and after the Reagan era—roughly the New Deal through the late 1970s versus the 1980s to the present—reveals how American policies shifted away from social protections and economic equality, while the Nordics maintained a system that balances individual liberty with collective welfare.
Rethinking Freedom: How Taxes Shape Personal Liberty
High taxes are often framed in American discourse as a threat to personal freedom. In this view, each dollar taken by the government is seen as a restriction on individual choice, limiting the ability to decide independently how to spend one’s income. Freedom, in this sense, is equated with financial autonomy—the ability to accumulate and control wealth without external interference.
Yet Anu Partanen’s The Nordic Theory of Everything challenges this assumption. In Nordic countries, taxes fund universal healthcare, education, childcare, and social safety nets. Far from constraining freedom, these investments reduce personal risk, protect individuals from financial shocks, and expand life choices. What Americans perceive as “forced redistribution” is, in the Nordic perspective, a shared investment that provides freedom from fear, debt, and dependence.
The contrast becomes clearer when comparing historical U.S. practices. Prior to the Reagan era, the United States tolerated much higher taxes on the wealthy, with top marginal rates often exceeding 70–90 percent. These revenues funded public universities, infrastructure, pensions, and housing programs, lowering individual burdens. Paying taxes was widely understood as a civic duty, a contribution to shared prosperity rather than a loss of liberty. In this context, high taxes were compatible with a meaningful sense of personal freedom.
The Reagan era shifted this paradigm. Taxes came to be framed as inherently coercive, and government itself was depicted as the obstacle to individual liberty. Public investment declined, while essential services such as healthcare, education, and childcare increasingly relied on private payment. At the same time, freedom was reframed as the retention of personal income—even as financial insecurity grew, and basic needs became more expensive and risky.
Partanen’s implicit comparison highlights the irony: Nordic countries today maintain a social contract resembling mid-20th-century America, combining high taxation with broad protections that expand real-life freedom. Meanwhile, contemporary U.S. policy prioritizes low taxes at the cost of greater personal financial exposure, presenting the illusion of freedom while increasing vulnerability.
Ultimately, the link between high taxes and freedom is not inherent but culturally framed. Where Americans see taxes as a limitation, Nordics see them as a tool to secure autonomy, reduce fear, and enhance the ability to pursue life goals. Examining these contrasting perspectives reveals that the true measure of personal freedom may lie less in what one keeps, and more in the opportunities one is guaranteed.
Big Government, Real Freedom: Rethinking Control and Autonomy
In American political discourse, a strong government is often equated with intrusive control and a loss of individual autonomy. “Small government” is framed as synonymous with freedom, while expansive welfare programs are viewed as mechanisms of state dependency that limit personal choice. Under this view, government intervention threatens the liberty of citizens rather than enhancing it.
Yet Anu Partanen’s analysis of Nordic countries challenges this perception. In the Nordics, government plays a protective role without micromanaging personal life or moral decisions. Citizens are less dependent on employers, spouses, or extended family because the state ensures a baseline of security. What Americans interpret as intrusive bureaucracy is, in Nordic practice, a framework that enhances independence from private power.
Historical U.S. experience illustrates the contrast. Before the Reagan era, government actively regulated banks, labor markets, housing, and monopolies, while expanding social programs such as Social Security and the GI Bill. These programs operated without moral policing and served to limit the power of private actors, thereby increasing the leverage and autonomy of ordinary citizens. A visible, active state often meant greater personal freedom in practice.
The Reagan era transformed this paradigm. Government withdrew from economic protection while simultaneously expanding punitive mechanisms, such as policing and incarceration. Individuals became increasingly reliant on employers for healthcare and basic survival, and “small government” came to signify less protection from private coercion rather than less control overall. Autonomy from the state became conflated with exposure to private constraints.
Partanen’s comparison underscores the paradox: Nordic governments are highly visible and actively protective, yet they interfere minimally in personal life, creating real freedom. Modern U.S. governance, by contrast, is often invisible where it matters—failing to shield citizens from economic precarity—while harshly coercive in punishment, producing dependence under the guise of liberty.
Ultimately, the perception of “big government” as a threat to freedom overlooks the distinction between protective and coercive control. Nordic examples suggest that strong, well-designed government can expand autonomy and security simultaneously, while minimalist government can leave individuals more vulnerable to private power than state oversight.
Universal Benefits and Real Responsibility: Rethinking Welfare and Freedom
In the United States, programs such as universal healthcare, paid parental leave, or broad social support are often viewed skeptically. Critics argue that universal benefits encourage laziness or entitlement, framing struggle as an essential component of character-building and personal freedom. From this perspective, assisting citizens beyond a minimal level risks undermining responsibility and moral fiber.
Anu Partanen’s The Nordic Theory of Everything offers a strikingly different perspective. In Nordic countries, universal systems are designed to apply to everyone, reducing stigma and encouraging broad participation in work and society. People are expected to contribute, but their basic dignity is protected, ensuring that security and opportunity coexist with personal accountability. What Americans see as “coddling” is, in the Nordic view, a foundation for higher productivity, social trust, and meaningful engagement.
Historical U.S. practice illustrates the contrast. Prior to the Reagan era, public schools, subsidized colleges, and social pensions were widely accessible and respected. Welfare was framed as temporary support rather than a marker of moral failure, and broad access facilitated social mobility and active workforce participation. Universal-ish benefits were normalized, and the idea of shared security strengthened rather than diminished societal responsibility.
The Reagan era reshaped both policy and public perception. Welfare rhetoric shifted toward a “deserving versus undeserving” framework, emphasizing surveillance, shame, and moral judgment. Benefits became fragmented and means-tested, and struggle itself was often reframed as proof of worth. Social insecurity became a tool for motivating personal effort rather than a signal of systemic gaps requiring public solutions.
Partanen’s critique highlights a key divergence: Nordic societies operate on a principle of trust, offering universal protections that encourage participation while preserving personal responsibility. In contrast, post-Reagan America frequently treats insecurity as a moral test, punishing vulnerability rather than supporting citizens to thrive. The Nordic model demonstrates that universal benefits can reinforce, rather than erode, social and individual responsibility, fostering a society where security and accountability coexist.
Ultimately, the debate over universal benefits is not about reducing freedom or responsibility, but about designing systems that allow people to live with dignity while contributing meaningfully to society. The Nordic experience suggests that well-structured universal programs can strengthen both freedom and accountability simultaneously.
Labor Protections and Real Freedom: Rethinking Market Flexibility
In the United States, strong labor protections are often criticized as constraints on market freedom. High union density, mandated benefits, and job protections are framed as limiting employer flexibility and economic efficiency. “At-will” employment is widely celebrated as the embodiment of labor freedom, even when workers face precarious conditions as a result.
Anu Partanen’s analysis of Nordic societies provides a different perspective. In the Nordics, labor protections empower workers by ensuring access to healthcare, childcare, and education, even if they leave a job. Far from constraining freedom, these policies increase real bargaining power, allowing workers to reject exploitative conditions without risking financial ruin or personal security. What Americans see as overregulation is, in fact, a mechanism that enhances worker autonomy.
Looking at historical U.S. trends highlights the contrast. Before the Reagan era, high union density granted workers collective bargaining power, and stable employment with benefits was common. Economic risk was shared among employers, workers, and the state, creating a balance that promoted both security and productivity. Labor protections were viewed as a means of supporting a stable and equitable economy rather than restricting freedom.
The Reagan era marked a decisive shift. Union power was deliberately weakened, with the PATCO strike serving as a symbolic turning point. Job insecurity increased, and benefits became more conditional. While workers were technically “free” to quit, many were effectively trapped by economic pressures, illustrating that the nominal freedom to exit did not translate into real autonomy. Market flexibility increasingly favored employers, often at the expense of human stability.
Partanen’s framing highlights the Nordic difference: their labor markets prioritize exit freedom—workers can leave unsatisfactory jobs without fear of losing essential support—whereas post-Reagan America prioritizes employer flexibility, leaving employees vulnerable. Strong labor protections, in this context, are not limitations on freedom but instruments that expand it by guaranteeing security, choice, and mobility.
Ultimately, the American perception that labor protections reduce market freedom overlooks the ways in which such protections enhance real personal and economic freedom. The Nordic model demonstrates that safeguarding workers’ rights and well-being does not impede markets—it strengthens them by enabling participants to act freely without fear of exploitation.
Social Equality and True Opportunity: Rethinking Individual Achievement
In American political and cultural discourse, social equality is often framed as a constraint on individual ambition. Critics argue that policies aimed at leveling the playing field limit exceptional success, suggesting that freedom means the right to rise, even if others fall behind. In this view, reducing inequality is thought to “flatten” incentive and dampen personal drive.
Anu Partanen’s The Nordic Theory of Everything challenges this assumption. In Nordic societies, equality does not cap ambition; rather, it provides a stable platform from which people can take risks, whether starting businesses, changing careers, or pursuing creative ventures. By reducing dependence on family wealth or luck, equality expands the range of individuals able to seize opportunities and innovate, creating a society where success is more broadly attainable.
Historical U.S. experience highlights the contrast. Before the Reagan era, a strong middle class and lower levels of inequality supported mass upward mobility. Education and housing were broadly accessible, enabling individuals to pursue ambitious goals without risking economic ruin. Exceptional success existed, but it did not require others to fall behind, demonstrating that equality and achievement could coexist.
The Reagan era shifted both policy and perception. Economic inequality increased sharply, and social mobility declined. Risk-taking and opportunity increasingly became privileges of the wealthy, while the majority faced heightened precarity. The notion of “freedom to succeed” became increasingly disconnected from security for all, meaning that many Americans could only risk failure at great personal cost.
Partanen’s argument underscores the Nordic lesson: equality does not diminish the incentive to achieve—it widens the pool of people who can afford to be ambitious. By providing a secure baseline, Nordic societies allow individuals to innovate, experiment, and pursue success without imposing disproportionate risk on others or themselves.
Ultimately, the debate over social equality and individual achievement reveals a critical insight: freedom to succeed is most meaningful when supported by equality. The Nordic example demonstrates that reducing structural disparities enhances both personal opportunity and societal dynamism, showing that ambition thrives best when the ground beneath it is stable.
Summary & Implications
Anu Partanen argues that Americans often confuse freedom from government with freedom in daily life. True freedom, she suggests, is measured not by ideology but by the ability to live without constant insecurity: to change jobs without losing healthcare, to support oneself without relying entirely on a spouse or employer, and to make life choices without fear of financial catastrophe. Nordic societies, in her view, sacrifice minimal-state ideology to secure practical freedom—the ability to act, take risks, and thrive with structural support.
Looking at U.S. history, many forms of this practical freedom existed prior to the Reagan era, when affordable education, pensions, and job protections allowed individuals to make meaningful life choices. In the post-Reagan period, however, freedom became largely symbolic: Americans retained formal choice but lost the structural buffers that made those choices viable. Partanen’s implicit conclusion is striking: Nordic countries preserved a model of lived freedom that the United States once practiced, while modern America traded tangible independence for an abstract ideal.
References
- The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life. Anu Partanen. 2016