📊Imagine… Preventively Managing Overcrowded Resources📊
💡 Imagined Endstate:
Imagine societies where healthcare, education, labor inclusion, and social protection are delivered effectively, efficiently, and sustainabl, not through ever-expanding tax burdens, but through systems that preserve incentives, strengthen families and communities, and focus public resources on what matters most.
📚 Source:
Fölster, S., & Sanandaji, N. (2026). The Welfare State Myth: How Low-Tax Countries Offer the World’s Best Welfare. Institute of Economic Affairs. Link.
💥 What’s the Big Deal:
For decades, high-tax Nordic welfare states were widely viewed as the gold standard for social wellbeing. This report challenges that long-held assumption by showing that a growing group of low-tax countries now outperform high-tax nations across many welfare outcomes, including health, education, labor market inclusion, and material wellbeing. Countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and South Korea, all with tax burdens between 26–32% of GDP, rank higher in overall welfare quality than high-tax peers like Sweden, where taxes exceed 40% of GDP📉.
The authors introduce a “welfare state crowding-out” theory, arguing that excessive taxation and expansive income support can unintentionally weaken the very systems they aim to strengthen. High taxes may crowd out market-based welfare services, family support systems, precautionary savings, and private insurance, while also reducing incentives to work, study, and invest in skills 💼. Over time, this can lead to inefficiencies, waste, and underperformance in essential services like healthcare and education.
The data show that low-tax models are not inherently superior, but that when paired with strong governance, accountability, and efficient service delivery, they can achieve equal or better welfare outcomes than high-tax states📘. Importantly, the report does not claim simple causation, but highlights persistent correlations: higher prosperity growth, better health outcomes, stronger education performance (including PISA scores), and lower unemployment, especially among less-educated workers, tend to appear more frequently in lower-tax environments👥.
For policymakers, the implication is profound. Raising taxes is often presented as the default solution to welfare challenges, yet this research suggests that system design, incentives, and efficiency matter more than scale alone 🏗️. When governments assume taxes can always rise further, they may tolerate poor management and misallocation, ultimately weakening welfare quality rather than improving it.
This conversation is especially relevant for small states and PI-SIDS, where fiscal space is limited, populations are aging, and social systems must do more with fewer resources 🌊. For these contexts, the lesson is not to dismantle welfare, but to build smart, targeted systems that preserve social solidarity without eroding economic resilience or self-efficacy.
Imagine reframing welfare not as a question of “how much the state takes,” but as “how well society cares.” This research invites governments to move beyond ideological debates about taxes and instead focus on outcomes📈, health, dignity, opportunity, and inclusion. When welfare systems are designed with discipline, accountability, and respect for incentives, they can protect the vulnerable while still enabling growth. For societies facing demographic pressure and fiscal limits, the future of welfare may depend not on expanding the state, but on making it smarter.
#WelfarePolicy, #PublicSector, #Efficiency, #SocialOutcomes, #TaxPolicy, #EconomicResilience, #Governance, #PI-SIDS,#IMSPARK,
