The Nordic countries’ economies are performing well, and a part of the reason is that they are gradually reforming their “social model,” adapting it to new realities in ways that respond to people’s demands. But there is nothing uniquely “Nordic” about this change. On the contrary, it is one that others can emulate.
Such a policy obviously requires significant investment in research and development. Sweden, for example, invests more than any other European country in this area — well above the EU target of 3 percent of GDP. Many countries invest less, and even Sweden’s 4 percent of GDP might not be enough, given higher spending on research and development in China, India and the US.
Moreover, large investments in research and development may be of limited use if knowledge can’t be transformed into successful businesses. That requires adopting policies that cover everything from kindergarten training to collaboration between universities and companies, as well as an overall business climate in which success is rewarded and failure is not treated as a human catastrophe. The US’ success is to a great extent based on this kind of thinking.
Unfortunately, most European educational systems are based on outdated practices and theories. Although educational possibilities and structures have gradually been diversified, the major shortcoming of most European educational systems remains: Students have too few choices, and teachers, if they want to remain in their profession, must adhere to a severely compartmentalized pedagogy.
As with corporate monopolies, the consumers (students) are often seen as a homogeneous mass, where all students can be educated according to the same pedagogical approach. But schools must be able to meet the needs and abilities of individual children in a way that makes learning a stimulating adventure.
Other countries might find Sweden’s system worth studying. Its schools are financed by local communities and work within the framework of a national curriculum designed by the parliament and government. But while everyone must follow these rules, individual schools are run in a competitive manner. Anyone — parents, teachers or even companies — can apply for a license to operate a school. The National School Board is, in principle, instructed to approve an application if the proposed school is likely to fulfill the national goals and has a solid financial base.
Moreover, private schools are not seen as mere supplements to public schools, but as full-fledged alternatives, so they need not offer something different. A community where a private school offers its services must support it with the same amount of money, or vouchers, per student that it provides to public schools. The amount of financing per student is the same, and schools that receive vouchers cannot charge additional fees.
After this system was adopted in the 1990s, many non-public schools were established. The pioneers were often parents’ or teachers’ cooperatives, usually with a special pedagogical philosophy. Companies operating chains of schools later came to play an important role as well.
As a result, the variety of schools has increased throughout Sweden. The voucher system means that all students, irrespective of family income, can attend the school of their choice. Even in rural areas, there is now a wide choice of schools, and it seems that competition has improved the overall quality of Swedish schools, as the non-public schools’ very existence has created a demand for reform of public schools. If there is any difference, it seems that non-public schools are often better than public schools in dealing with children with learning problems.
There are, of course, many alternatives to what Sweden has done to revitalize education. But three features of Sweden’s reform seem particularly important. It was based on a combination of public and market systems; it was general in form without demanding that non-public schools be special in order to be licensed; and it covered all students.
Sweden’s voucher educational system is probably the most ambitions of its kind in the world. This is all the more remarkable insofar as the principle of competition on which it relies has taken root in a country where competition within the area of public services has not generally been accepted.
Per Unckel is a former Swedish minister of education and science.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/EUROPE’S WORLD
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS