A few days ago I attended a lecture at the Scandinavian House in New York. Professor Christine Ingebritsen, Associate Professor at the University of Washington, presented her new book, Scandinavia in World Politics. The book examines the role of Scandinavian countries in world politics, and during the lecture Ingebritsen brought up a few points from the book that were very interesting.

First of all, she talked about the strong sense of community that has been built in Scandinavian countries, even from the days of the Vikings! Yep, the Vikings, although brutal to other groups, had systems in place for the equal sharing of resources among members of their community. Due to the lack of natural resources (before the oil...), the difficult climate and the isolation from trade, Scandinavians historically have been forced to build communities where resource-sharing and sustainability were important factors. This sense of community eventually led to the development of the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure equality and provide an adequate standard of living for all citizens. Ingebritsen argues that Scandinavians have brought this concept into world politics, and that Scandinavian countries enjoy a disproportional large influence in multilateral negotiations.

Ingebritsen talked about the concepts of objective power and subjective power in world politics. Objective power is based on the actual resources a country has, such as the size and capabilities of the army, financial resources, the number of citizens, and so on. Subjective power is based on how a country is perceived and the willingness of other countries to listen to the ideas that a country bring to the table. Ingebritsen suggests that Scandinavian countries have more subjective power than objective power, and may I suggest the US as a country with more objective power than subjective power?

I found these concepts very interesting, and I have always wondered whether Norway's role in world politics is more shaped by the fact that it is a large donor country (objective power), or because other countries actually want to listen what Norway has to say (subjective power). I do believe Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have developed some social models that are worth considering exporting to other countries, but at the same time one cannot discount the role of development aid, which may prompt some countries to be more open to Scandinavian ideas in the hope of being on the receiving end of this aid.

At the same time, Scandinavians should be very careful about claiming “moral superiority”, which unfortunately many do. We are not as loud and insisting of our success as the US sometimes is – it’s more of a subtle, quiet recognition among ourselves that “we know better.” Still, most Scandinavians are well-traveled and well-educated, and I don’t think there will ever be a problem of “idea isolationism.” It’s just important, especially in multilateral negotiations, that we don’t impose our models and systems on countries that do not want them, and that our development aid does not come with a requirement to adapt Scandinavian policies. Participation and local ownership, especially by young people, of decisions and policies is one of the most important factors in making implementation a success.