Razib, I have some thought in response to your statement that: "socialist nations often exhibit some fatigue at the extent of the nanny state, while nations with thinner social safety nets have a more positive attitude toward future extension of the welfare state"

An interesting possibility is that the causality could be in reverse. That is, societies that need a nanny state, are those that cannot tolerate the freedom of a modern social democracy, because of their social unrest and resulting conservative social values. And those values also explain their resentment of the nanny state. Behaviors and attitudes of the populace can determine government as much as the reverse.

Whereas, in places like Sweden and Denmark, the people's character and attitudes are anti-conservative because of a lack of social problems, and so they don't resent the nanny state, even if they don't have it and don't need it.

When I think of nations that are conservative as a result of social unrest, the United States springs directly to mind, what with it's bloody history, and comparatively huge social inequalities. In Canada, where we lack much of this history, mainstream political attitudes are much more European.

Whereas, in places like Sweden and Denmark, the people's character and attitudes are anti-conservative because of a lack of social problems, and so they don't resent the nanny state, even if they don't have it and don't need it.

my point was that on some of these results swedes and danes (and finns) seem to be less positively inclined to the cradle-to-grave system they have than the italians who don't have the same extensive cradle-to-grave system. i'm a little confused as to the logic of your comment therefore, so perhaps you should restate it (i think i get what you're saying, but not sure).

I saw some interesting stats:

Only 2-30% attend weekly religious services, but 62-85% think a church wedding is important.

48-71% think that "guaranteeing baic needs for all" is "very important", but only 6-20% belong to a social welfare organization.

Only 10-29% believe in "clear guidelines about good and evil", but 69-93% believe that accepting a bribe is "never justifiable".

The human mind is very good at compartmentalizing.

The human mind is very good at compartmentalizing.

yeah. though on the church wedding part, i think many people see it is an important cultural marker where you don't have to be a believer. i've known of atheists who have had weddings in churches for that reason even in the US. that being said i don't get how the church allows people don't believe in god to celebrate their marriage there, but whatever.

also, re: "good at compartmentalizing." i think it is important to reaffirm that as an empirical matter it is compartmentalized. and that the executive functions which do all the reflection and chattering isn't always at the wheel, even though it tells you it is.

Razib:

Usually cold hard cash taken as a usage fee while looking the other way. The scenic historic churches of Hawaii do at least one Asian tourist wedding a day.

The big exception to this rule is the Catholic Church, which tends to be more inflexible about the whole "being Catholic" thing.

I saw some interesting stats:

Only 2-30% attend weekly religious services, but 62-85% think a church wedding is important.

48-71% think that "guaranteeing baic needs for all" is "very important", but only 6-20% belong to a social welfare organization.

Only 10-29% believe in "clear guidelines about good and evil", but 69-93% believe that accepting a bribe is "never justifiable".

The human mind is very good at compartmentalizing.

I'm pretty certain that good & evil beliefs are mostly a matter of religion or ideology. The Scandinavian countries are famous for their lack of public corruption. Where I'm sure that in Muslim countries, the belief in G & E is strong, yet they have high levels of corruption.

herb, yes. it's rather amusing to see that 99% of people in bangladesh believe that corruption is "never justifiable." look it up.

it's rather amusing to see that 99% of people in bangladesh believe that corruption is "never justifiable." look it up.

Obviously someone paid off the survey-makers.

that being said i don't get how the church allows people don't believe in god to celebrate their marriage there, but whatever.

This is more or less the norm in Lutheran Europe. Most atheists are still members of the church and I know some are even openly involved in church politics. Identification with Lutheranism is strong even when faith isn't. I got put in the church when I was a kid because my non-believing mom still thinks it's proper and necessary to belong to the church. I was a minor scandal when I resigned, as in rural Finland resigning the church means that you're either communist or really, really religious.

The churches won't really care about atheist weddings when they won't even properly evict atheist priests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tho...d_Grosb%C3% B8ll

Orion
"in places like Sweden and Denmark, [...], because of a lack of social problems":
if you happen not to be gay or Jewish that is.
See for example http://memo.brucebawer.com/

I moved from Europe to the US for this reason.

Razib, I think I was mixed up by the original post, which is a little confusing. In the title and the main body of your intro, it sounded to me that you were saying the Swedes and Danes are more "politically correct", meaning left-wing socialist-leaning, than Finns, who are closer to Italians in being more conservative.

However in the sentence that you bolded and I quoted, you were making almost the opposite argument that Swedes and Danes are LESS cradle-to-the-grave socialists in their attitudes, than Finns and Italians. I agree with the original point, not the one in bold that I quoted mistakenly.

I don't see how the Finns and Italians come out as more inclined towards the welfare state. Swedes, for example, belong the most into human rights organizations (15%), welfare organizations (20.8%), and don't favor stricter limits on immigration (only 28.7%). The Danes and Swedes come out on top in terms of left-wing views much more often than Finns and Italians: in tolerance of homosexuals (only 8% and 6% disapproval as a neighbour), abortion, atheism, different races, etc.

My original points stand somewhat: the Swedes and Danes don't resent the nanny state (in fact they like it) because it works for them with their minimal social problems, whereas countries with more social problems and inequalities (like the United States), the attitudes are conservative and anti-nanny state because they don't have the inherent equality needed to function under a free social democracy.

I don't see how the Finns and Italians come out as more inclined towards the welfare state. Swedes, for example, belong the most into human rights organizations (15%), welfare organizations (20.8%), and don't favor stricter limits on immigration (only 28.7%). The Danes and Swedes come out on top in terms of left-wing views much more often than Finns and Italians: in tolerance of homosexuals (only 8% and 6% disapproval as a neighbour), abortion, atheism, different races, etc.

fwiw, i don't see how a lot of these particular attitudes have anything necessarily to do with social democracy (e.g., immigration, religion, etc.). in any case, my point was mostly that there seems data to suggest that populations have a tendency to sometimes see things as greener on the other side of the grass.

fwiw, i don't see how a lot of these particular attitudes have anything necessarily to do with social democracy (e.g., immigration, religion, etc.)

I was going under the assumption here that social democracy is a more left-wing phenomenon than right-wing. But I see your point as well now, it shows on questions like "the government should take more responsibility" where Finns and Italians are much more likely to agree, despite their more conservative social views in general. I think what we're seeing here is the break-down of the one-axis left-right distinction. Perhaps were need to distinguish between the axes of left-right personal freedom and authoritarian-libertarian economic freedom, as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Pol...itical_spectrum, in order to get a handle on things.

The Finns and Italians may be personally or socially conservative, which usually goes with economic libertarianism, but they seem to be more favorable toward economic "authoritarianism" than their social views would predict.