Baltic Business Research

Sammanfattning

Sverige betecknas allt oftare som en tigerekonomi. Visst kan vi glädja oss en kort stund åt detta – framför allt utomlands – uppfunna och uppskattade epitetet. Det vore dock farligt om svenska politiker tog dessa högst inofficiella utnämning som mer än en liten uppmuntrande klapp på axeln. Även media borde snart ta det något lugnare med termen ”svensk tigerekonomi”. I annat fall har man ännu inte riktigt förstått, hur globaliseringen verkligen fungerar. Den allt tuffare globala marknaden kräver ständiga ekonomisk-politiska förbättringsarbeten. Dagens meriter räcker inte särskilt länge.

——————–

In recent weeks, Sweden has been mentioned quite frequently as a tiger economy in different international circles due to its considerable recent GDP increase in percent (Q3 2010: 6.9 percent). It is, of course, a little bit flattering when foreign politicians, journalists and economists appreciate Swedish policy efforts and good GDP results. I also know that Sweden will get some further recognition later on this year as the most successful economy in 2010.  We should, however, be humble for several reasons:

First, international analysts are often focusing too much on only a few macroeconomic variables – thus neglecting microeconomic and institutional conditions. This time, very much of the general judgment certainly is based on the good Swedish fiscal situation and on pure (strong) GDP-growth figures in 2010 (around 5.5 percent). Sure, the public fiscal stance is something to be really proud of. But it seems to be forgotten by the “tiger-economy supporters” that Sweden still belongs to the weakest countries in EU when it comes to (real) employment of young people, and that GDP change in 2009 really was disappointing (- 5.6   percent).

Second, the Swedish corporate sector has interpreted the recognition as a “tiger economy” less enthusiastic than certain economists and parts of the press. This is because companies are closer to reality.   

Third, for talking more about reality, the corporate sector knows well about certain microeconomic and institutional shortcomings which “nobody”  wants to address clearly enough these days. This may concern parts of the labor market, taxes, bureaucracy, high schools, certain areas of academic education, etc.

Forth, one should not forget – when looking at history – that quite a number  of previous economic tigers at some point turned into snails because of policy failures, reform reluctance, and complacency. This historical experience should be transmitted to analysts and Swedish politicians on all levels, including the opposition and local political levels.  

Fifth, according to my own view, the term “tiger economy” assumes spectacular GDP growth during quite a number of years. In the Swedish case, it’s still a bumpy road and a long time to get to such a status. I do doubt that Swedish GDP can grow by 4 or 5 percent  during several years in a row. This conclusion is not contrary to the fact that the Swedish economy has become strong in quite a number of respects. Anyway, continuous policy improvements are necessary in the future, too. This is reality. Thus, we should stop dreaming about belonging to the tigers (which – also naturally – are at home in Asia).

The animal we should be looking for and dreaming about – instead of tigers – should be strong, smart, flexible but also persistent, cautious when necessary, non-aggressive and co-operative.

Is there a zoologist who can give me a hint?