Scandinavia is the typical example resorted to by leftwingers who want to argue that a generous welfare state is compatible with, or even causative of, economic prosperity and beneficial social outcomes. This, Sanandaji says, is misguided because the good economic and social outcomes in Scandinavia have been despite of, not due to, the welfare state, deriving instead from a longstanding culture of hard work, honesty, etc (essentially Weber's Protestant work ethic) coupled with free-market policies in the period 1870-1970, with a partial revival from the 1990s after the more extreme welfare state of the '70s and '80s proved unsustainable.

Not much new here, from my perspective, but then I guess I'm not really the target audience, which is rather leftwingers in the wider world who have more admiration for than understanding of Scandinavian societies. What I found most interesting was perhaps the section on Scandinavian-descended Americans, who evidently do better on most economic and social measures than both other Americans and Scandinavians home in Scandinavia. It could have used more detail however - do, frex, Scandinavian-Americans still look as good if compared to English- or German-descended ones rather than all other Americans?

Something he doesn't address is the implicit pessimism in his emphasis on culture. If what he calls "the Scandinavian culture of success" is rooted in climate and social conditions going back to the middle ages, the prospects for anyone outside to copy that success - or even for Scandinavians to retain it in a world where independent farmers working hard in a cold climate are not longer relevant - are bleak.