Great nations

In the USA, Democratic politicians have recently stated that they think that Denmark is great because it has a strong and efficient welfare state which offers good health care, schools and even universities for all citizens free of charge. In a similar sense, President Barack Obama has said from the start that his priority is “nation building at home”, referring not only to health-care reform, but just as much to the disastrous Iraq war his predecessor George W. Bush had started. Republican politicians, however, consider Obamacare a huge failure, even though millions more are now covered, without jobs and businesses being destroyed. At the same time, they shy away from discussing Bush’s role in the Middle East. Unlike Democrats, moreover, they do not appreciate Denmark’s great public transport and huge share of renewables in the energy mix.   

German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not elaborate much on grand visions. In her eyes, the crucial issue seems to be international competitiveness. In this perspective, a well-organised welfare state is the reward for business success and something nations cannot afford unless their companies outperform foreign competitors. In the Euro crisis, southern European countries have thus been forced to dismantle social protection. The snag is that welfare institutions are not just the result of prosperity. As Markus Loewe explained in our D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2015/08, p. 18 ff., they also help to build prosperity. That is evident not only in Denmark, but in Germany too.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking an entirely different stance. He wants his country to be recognised as a global power. This claim is mostly based on military clout. Apart from his country’s armed forces and fossil fuel exports, Putin has little to boast of.

The Chinese regime, in contrast, first built a strong economy, raised the living standards of several hundred million people and then began to rattle sabres. India is still much poorer, but the Hindu-chauvinist forces that Prime Minister Narendra Modi relies on are already obsessed with claiming a role of world leadership. Their claim would be more convincing had they achieved more in terms of poverty reduction. 

In Africa, most leaders know that their countries are too small and too poor to become world leaders. Too many top leaders show little interest in developing their nations. To them, a great man is someone who, by whatever means, gets his way. 

Humankind cannot afford macho attitudes. We are facing huge challenges that national governments cannot tackle on their own. Climate change is probably the most important example. But others – from disease control to world trade – matter too. In this scenario, “nation building at home” makes sense, provided it is not done at the expense of others or the global commons. Attempts to gain military predominance, however, are not helpful. We need global cooperation, not confrontation.

From the developmental perspective, it is easy to determine national greatness. A good scorecard is the UN’s recently endorsed 2030 Agenda with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Leaders and nations are great if they contribute to achieving the SDGs. Nothing else matters.

Full disclosure: Like Hillary Clinton, I “love” Denmark, but I agree with Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen that his country is a market economy rather than a socialist state. Less xenophobia, however, would make Denmark even greater.

Hans Dembowski