Where does Social Democracy have brightest future?

[mileslunn]

Looking at things around the globe, there don't seem to be many places where social democracy is doing too well so curious as to where in 21st century people think it has best chance at winning elections even if won't win all.  I can think of a few.

Canada: Right now it looks like country will swing to right but considering right usually only gets in 30s and occasionally 40s and in Western Canada it is an NDP vs. centre-right party race, I wouldn't be surprised if nationally at some point you see that and with BC, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada having more leaning left than right, I could see them doing quite well.  Historically social democracy hasn't done well in Canada, but modern social democrats being urban progressives sets them up nicely for Canada which has loads of those and likewise less reliant on traditional blue collar workers who are drifting away from it unlike elsewhere.

UK: Since Thatcher, has probably be one of the most conservative countries in Europe, but if you look at breakdown by age, support for left amongst millennials and Gen Z is way higher than anywhere else in Europe while Labour is very weak amongst seniors unlike social democratic parties in mainland Europe.  While saying goes people get more conservative as they age, there is some evidence those who came of age during the austerity in early 2010s were badly hurt and have become firmly entrenched on left.  Add to fact Tories are blamed for Brexit and further compounds that.

Ireland: Has probably one of the worst records for social democratic parties in Europe, but Sinn Fein now leading and signs much like UK huge generational gap in attitudes.  Some have even commented Ireland is going through their own Quiet Revolution similar to what Quebec did in 60s where Catholic church who once dominated politics and culture is losing it fast.

Admitted none of those three look great and the conditions I mention may not last.  Likewise maybe like in Denmark under Frederiksen, left will take a harder line on immigration combined with a strong welfare state as that may have greater potential than current path of focusing on urban progressives. Urban progressive types are more a North American phenomenon and in countries where social democracy and class politics typically weaker.

[Hnv1]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

[CumbrianLefty]

It could have a decent future in quite a few places, once the current fad for rightist populism abates.

[mileslunn]

It could have a decent future in quite a few places, once the current fad for rightist populism abates.

I think social media is big reason right wing populism doing so well and not sure any establishment parties have figured out how to deal with that.  Although it does seem to be hurting left more than centre-right.  My guess is centre-right mostly above average income types so won't vote for parties on left as don't want to see their taxes go up, but are doing well so less susceptible to right wing populism.  Left has historically done best with those struggling and that is where right wing populism is gaining most traction. 

More social programs I think could work well in US and many developing countries but in Western Europe they already have a fairly strong welfare state and right generally doesn't like in GOP in US talk about dismantling or cutting it thus non-issue since parties largely similar. 

Taxing rich more is another but I get feeling the soak the rich idea appeals more to those in academia and urban progressives.  Blue collar types may notionally support it, but its not most important issue to them and seems to have little impact on how they vote.

[MaxQue]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

That is a lie, and you probably know it.

[mileslunn]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

That is a lie, and you probably know it.

Western world it is more a problem due to age demographics.  Most in West have more retiring than entering the work force so doesn't mean cannot maintain but does mean either need immigration to fill gap, raise taxes, or increase productivity to compensate for smaller labor force.  In developing world you have a younger population so that helps in terms of growth.  At same time ability to raise tax revenue more limited as you don't have as strong a middle class who can afford to pay high levels of taxes like is case in developed countries.

[Upper Canada Tory]

The Nordic countries still mostly have social democracy with a few minor adjustments to adapt to modern-day market economies and age-based demographics. So, still the Nordic countries, I guess?

Most English-speaking countries are too economically and ideologically diverse for genuine social democracies to work, not to mention that the Anglosphere still generally sees economic growth as being more important than safety nets. This is part of why the Trudeau gov't is unpopular in Canada, because he has prioritized safety nets over per capita economic growth, even though he thought such an approach would keep him in power.

[mileslunn]

The Nordic countries still mostly have social democracy with a few minor adjustments to adapt to modern-day market economies and age-based demographics. So, still the Nordic countries, I guess?

Most English-speaking countries are too economically and ideologically diverse for genuine social democracies to work, not to mention that the Anglosphere still generally sees economic growth as being more important than safety nets. This is part of why the Trudeau gov't is unpopular in Canada, because he has prioritized safety nets over per capita economic growth, even though he thought such an approach would keep him in power.

I think Trudeau latched onto occupy wall street and also after seeing Wynne, Gallant, and Notley win on taxing rich more and running deficits, he rightly saw that as a vote winner.  What he didn't anticipate is that was more just part of usual cycle not a long term shift.  I don't think running deficits is that popular although a lot only notionally support balanced budgets but aren't willing to tolerate cuts or tax hikes necessary to achieve it.  Taxing rich more is notionally quite popular, but I feel only a top issue for those already on left. 

That being said I do think in Canada may have some potential as unlike past divide is very much urban vs. rural and Canada is very urbanized.  Also left wing policies popular with more educated and Canada has quite a high percentage with post secondary degrees.  And likewise living next door to US which is exact opposite does create some desire to go in opposite direction.  One example is on health care, allowing private pay options is very controversial in Canada whereas in Europe it is the norm and only hard left parties, not centre-left ones want to ban it.  Whereas in Canada all centrist and left parties want to ban it while right may privately before a mixed system but will never publicly campaign on it.

Nordic may be more social democratic but that is more a legacy of past and true all parties plan to keep safety net in place but little talk of expanding it.  Likewise in 20th century, Social Democrats won vast majority of election whereas this century its been more mixed and have had less success than did in 20th century. 

[MaxQue]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

That is a lie, and you probably know it.

Western world it is more a problem due to age demographics.  Most in West have more retiring than entering the work force so doesn't mean cannot maintain but does mean either need immigration to fill gap, raise taxes, or increase productivity to compensate for smaller labor force.  In developing world you have a younger population so that helps in terms of growth.  At same time ability to raise tax revenue more limited as you don't have as strong a middle class who can afford to pay high levels of taxes like is case in developed countries.

The middle class isn't where the money is. Dividends, "investment" funds, boardrooms and the Amazons of this world is where the money is.

[mileslunn]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

That is a lie, and you probably know it.

Western world it is more a problem due to age demographics.  Most in West have more retiring than entering the work force so doesn't mean cannot maintain but does mean either need immigration to fill gap, raise taxes, or increase productivity to compensate for smaller labor force.  In developing world you have a younger population so that helps in terms of growth.  At same time ability to raise tax revenue more limited as you don't have as strong a middle class who can afford to pay high levels of taxes like is case in developed countries.

The middle class isn't where the money is. Dividends, "investment" funds, boardrooms and the Amazons of this world is where the money is.

Not really although depends on country.  In Canada, top 1% makes around 11% of national income and that starts at 250k.  Top 0.1% makes 7% of national income which starts at 700k so just relying on rich raises some revenue but nowhere near enough.  Corporate taxes just gets passed onto consumers and corporations can easily re-locate some of operations to lower tax zones.  if you look at countries with large welfare states, they have high taxes on all incomes not just top.  Those with high taxes on just top not middle are not nearly as generous.  Canada, US states like New York & California, Israel, South Korea, and Japan all examples of countries with high top marginal tax rates but lower on middle class and those all get less revenue than countries like Netherlands which has similar or slightly lower top rate but higher middle or Germany whose top rate a bit lower but overall tax much higher.  In US a bit easier as top 1% makes around 20% of income there while in Nordic Countries likely harder as they are more equal.

[palandio]

The third world, where some countries will experience growth and the simultaneous development of a welfare state of some sort. The Western model is becoming too expensive to maintain

That is a lie, and you probably know it.

Western world it is more a problem due to age demographics.  Most in West have more retiring than entering the work force so doesn't mean cannot maintain but does mean either need immigration to fill gap, raise taxes, or increase productivity to compensate for smaller labor force.  In developing world you have a younger population so that helps in terms of growth.  At same time ability to raise tax revenue more limited as you don't have as strong a middle class who can afford to pay high levels of taxes like is case in developed countries.

The middle class isn't where the money is. Dividends, "investment" funds, boardrooms and the Amazons of this world is where the money is.

Not really although depends on country.  In Canada, top 1% makes around 11% of national income and that starts at 250k.  Top 0.1% makes 7% of national income which starts at 700k so just relying on rich raises some revenue but nowhere near enough.  Corporate taxes just gets passed onto consumers and corporations can easily re-locate some of operations to lower tax zones.  if you look at countries with large welfare states, they have high taxes on all incomes not just top.  Those with high taxes on just top not middle are not nearly as generous.  Canada, US states like New York & California, Israel, South Korea, and Japan all examples of countries with high top marginal tax rates but lower on middle class and those all get less revenue than countries like Netherlands which has similar or slightly lower top rate but higher middle or Germany whose top rate a bit lower but overall tax much higher.  In US a bit easier as top 1% makes around 20% of income there while in Nordic Countries likely harder as they are more equal.

Keep in mind though that the distribution of wealth is usually less equal than the distribution of income, e.g. in Germany the top 1% of households owns 30-40% of the total wealth.
Additionally the income of the top 1% is mostly investment income, in Germany by cautious estimates at least 70%.
That's why the introduction of the "Reichensteuer" (rich tax) in Germany, i.e. raising the top rate from 42% to 45% for taxable labour incomes over 250k€, was mostly a grift. And whose idea was that grift? Oh, it's the same party that had lowered the top rate for labour incomes from 53% to 42% in the years before, and the name of the party is in the thread title, lol.

[LabourJersey]

Not sure, honestly.

My concern is that European-style Social Democracy, just like European-style Christian Democracy, is dependent on a high-social-trust society, which is not very common these days unfortunately.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Definitely nowhere in Europe (even in place where "social democratic" parties do well electorally, they're not really social democratic in a meaningful way anymore). Maybe in parts of Latin America? Although even then the transformative edge of the Pink Wave has mostly receded even in places where its figureheads are still in power.

[It’s so Joever]

I don’t really think this counts, but MORENA completly replacing the PRI is worth a small mention here even if the former is straying away from social democracy.

[wnwnwn]

Probably Bolivia.

[CumbrianLefty]

Definitely nowhere in Europe (even in place where "social democratic" parties do well electorally, they're not really social democratic in a meaningful way anymore). Maybe in parts of Latin America? Although even then the transformative edge of the Pink Wave has mostly receded even in places where its figureheads are still in power.

Well that is a whole debate in itself.....