Some reflections on Norwegian farming

The other day, I read an article in Dagsavisen about the different views of the Norwegian political parties with respect to the Norwegian agriculture. The Right wants to stop most subsidies to Norwegian farmers and thus force them to compete with agricultural products from abroad. The Left, on the other side, wants to keep the extensive subsidies and protect the farmers from foreign competition.

I tend to hold the view that the Norwegian farming is not competitive, and that we should not artificially keep it alive with high levels of subsidies and high tariff-barriers. A near arctic environment can hardly be said to be ideal for farming. Why should the taxpayers pay the salaries for a few individuals who want to cling on to something that's not at all able to compete with agriculture in other more suitable areas?

Also, it would be much fairer towards developing countries, e.g. in Africa, if we would truly open ourselves to real free-trade instead of building tariff-barriers to keep those countries from selling their produce to us. That could enable many poor farmers in developing countries to build better lives for themselves. It is inherently unfair the way that we are shutting these farmers out of our markets, and insisting that they need to open up for us to sell our products to them.

In addition to that, the world would be better off if we were to concentrate on areas where we are able to compete, and let countries with suitable climates concentrate on agriculture. That is what is called comparative advantage - we should all do what we do or can do best, and then trade fairly with one another. That will lead to products of better quality, made faster, and in greater amounts.

But - and this is a very weighty but - there are two other factors in the equation. Firstly, there is a food shortage coming. With growing populations, some have estimated that global food production needs to be doubled or tripled in the next 40-50 years. That taken into account, it might not be so desirable to pull the plug on the Norwegian agriculture and let it die. Maybe, in the long run, it would be wise to keep it alive for a while.

The other thing is that if the global warming continues, which in all probability it will, this would lead to the Norwegian climate becoming more suitable for farming than it is now. And thus, in a few years, the Norwegian farming might become a lot more competitive than what is now the case.

I guess the bottom line is that, as with many other issues, this is a difficult one, and it's not easy to say what's the right thing to do. As one of the richest countries in the world, such mercantilistic policies are in any case simply unethical. And the subsidies and tariff-barriers need to be lowered, even though that means that some farmers will be forced out of business. Farms being shut down is not an irreversible process. When or if the Norwegian climate will become more favorable, agriculture will inevitably grow even though it temporarily shrinks.

Some thoughts on alcohol..

It can be no doubt that the Norwegian alcohol laws are quite strict. Alcohol is generally very expensive, it is only sold at certain times, and stronger alcohols such as spirits and even wine are sold only through special alcohol outlets (Vinmonopolet). Also, in traffic, there is a zero-tolerance towards alcohol.

This stands out in stark contrast to the country where I currently live, the UK. Here alcohol is sold any time, at low prices, and even heavily discounted. Very often, the person behind the counter in the corner shop will inform you that there is a 8 cans of beer for 6 pounds offer if you pick a less cheap alternative from the shelf. And what's more; you will often see people getting behind the steering wheel after a drink or two.

A couple of years ago, I spent a year in Germany as an exchange student. During that time, I got into the habit of drinking wine with my dinner at night. Coming back to Norway, I got a little annoyed when I "re-discovered" that wine is not sold in regular grocery-shops. To get yourself a bottle of wine for dinner, you'll have to go to the alcohol-outlet. I do still think that is a little over the top; why making getting a bottle of wine such a hassle? But having seen all the problems with alcohol here in the UK, I think the Norwegian alcohol legislation is mainly a good thing. There is a clear correlation between price and availability, and consumption - making alcohol less readily available reduces consumption. Alcohol (and stronger alcohols in particular) should be rather expensive and not too easy to get hold of.

Of course, alcohol abuse is a complex problem, both on an individual level and sociologically. As the drunkard Jeppe said in Ludvig Holbergs play Jeppe on the Hill, "Everyone says that Jeppe drinks, but no one asks why". To be sure, even with very strict alcohol legislation, a lot of Norwegians get pissed out of their brains too. But compared to the Brits, that's Sunday school. And it certainly would not help to reduce alcohol consumption to make it cheaper and more available.

Another aspect of it is that the legislation is helping to shape the norms and attitudes towards alcohol. For me, it would be almost unthinkable to get behind the wheel and drive after even only one beer. I think that goes for most Norwegians. Drinking and driving does not go together, full stop. That attitude is greatly helped by the strict non-tolerance laws when it comes to alcohol and driving.

I do not mean to present Norwegians as particularly good drinkers - we certainly are not. Many Norwegians drink too much and too often. The steep prices on alcohol (particularly in bars and discos) makes us drink more before we hit the town, so that we won't have to drink so much after going out. This of course just makes us drunker earlier in the evening. But having seen the attitudes towards alcohol here in the UK have made me a little more wary towards the problems associated with alcohol, and I would not want Norway to resemble the UK any more than we already do in this respect.

Scandinavian Gentlemen?

In this post, I would like to pick up the lead from one of my May posts, "Norwegian "politeness"", and continue on that. The other day, I had a little discussion with some of my colleagues at work about gentlemen. It might be said that we Scandinavians are not truly behaving like gentlemen, at least not in the classical sense - e.g. like a Frenchman. We often don't help the women put on their coats, hold their chairs, open the doors for them, etc. - all the things that would be expected from the classical gentleman.

Personally, I think the 1970s did a great deal of harm to the concept of being a gentleman in Norway. That probably holds true in some other countries as well. The 70s were of course a time of great liberation for women, and we (both women and men) should be very thankful of that. Still, the gentleman in the classical sense was largely sacrificed on the altar of equality at that time.

In the biological sense, the reason women need men at all after the act of conceiving their child is protection. Men are stronger than women, and particularly when the woman is pregnant, they are better equipped to gather food for her and care for her and her offspring. And when the family was faced with danger, the man is of course better equipped to ward off those dangers. To me, the classical gentleman embodies a lot of that strength and that ability to take care of his woman, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form than the neanderthal club-wielding brute.

In the 70s, with the women's liberation, women seemed to not need men to take care of them any more. They could get jobs of their own, earn their own money, and take care of themselves. When men were trying to take care of them, that was seen as reactionary and as if they wanted to turn the clock back to the time when women were chained to the kitchen - which was not necessarily true.

It seems to me that the Norwegians (especially women) see equality as being the same. Instead of cherishing the difference between the sexes, we want men and women to be the same, and to be doing the same things. We want the same number of female truck drivers as male, the equal number of construction workers, electricians, computer technicians etc., and we want the same number of female and male nurses and kindergarden teachers.

Thanks to the developments from the 1970s, the Norwegian society is one of a very large degree of equality between the sexes, but at the same time one that does not seem to appreciate the virtue of gentlemanliness. Although I do appreciate the fact that men and women do have equal opportunities, I think it is a little sad that being a gentleman is not really something that is valued in our culture. Personally, I think we should celebrate the fact that men and women are different. Of equal value and with equal opportunities, but still different.

There is nothing wrong with men taking care of their women and children. Still, I think it is true for a lot of men that our culture have not instilled in us a sense that this is an important value (living with a French woman, this is something I get pointed out all the time). Our women are capable of taking care of themselves, so what do they need us to do that for? What do they need us to hold the door for them, or hold their coat, or bring them flowers? Of course they don't need us to, but how nice is it not when we do?