Swimming against the tide?

"You don't plan to stay in Norway? Really?"

That's a very usual reaction to me saying that I have not come to Norway to move here permanently and that my plan is to eventually go back to Estonia. I notice this kind of reaction (manifested verbally or by raising eyebrows) being expressed by both Norwegians, foreigners living in Norway and many in Estonia.

It seems so obvious, doesn't it? Norway is one of the wealthiest and most comfortable countries in the world to live in. Estonia is a relatively poor country of European Union, plagued by unemployment and other social problems. Who would want to exchange these two for the benefit of latter one?

Well, yes, Norway is an amazing country, superior to anything else I have experienced in many respects. But words like ties with my family and sense of responsibility towards my land, the ability to impact the development and to make a real difference are not just empty slogans for me. Perhaps, I am naive... but a certain degree of naivety can be helpful sometimes...

Trip to the western coast of Norway - Geirangerfjorden

The last weekend I had chance to visit the Western coast of Norway again - this time the famous Geirangerfjord. The small town of Geiranger was a sort of the tourist nightmare - plenty of cruise ship travellers from Germany and England. But the moment we went farther from the town towards the nature, I started to truly enjoy the trip. Me and my wife (I got married this summer) walked the way from 0 to 550 meters above the sea on medium-challenging hiking path.

The new Gartner hiking boots proved to be a good investment (as well as tent from Helsport and the air-mattresses from artiach). We put up a tent on the picturesque hill from which we had a magnificent view on the fjord. An amazing place to have a self-cooked dinner and breakfast in the nature!

We were also lucky with the weather. The western coast of Norway is famous for its rainy climate. Yet we did not experience any rain and in the second half of the second day we even had  a sun.

All in all, it was a very fulfilling trip - the best during this year so far.
 

Põhjala paradoks – kui jätkussutlik on Skandinaavia mudel?

- For the readers who don't understand Estonian - this is an article I wrote about Scandinavian model of society - its roots, its main features, challenges and possibilities of "exporting" it elsewhere. It is something I have been very interested myself in and which I hope will help me to eventually bring Estonia closer to Nordics. I would like to give my gratitude to the interesting people who agreed to find time to talk to me and share their thoughts on the Scandinavian societal system - Kathrine Aspaas, Knut Sogner, Jon Erik Dølvik and Vidar Lindefjeld. -

Eestis ei ole kellegi jaoks saladus Põhjamaade suhteline ja absoluutne edu majanduses, ühiskonna arengu tasemes, turvalisuses ja paljus muuski. Kõikvõimalikes edetabelites, mis seavad maailmariike ritta ühel või teisel alusel, on Põhjamaad alati eespool.

Kõige levinum viis, mismoodi mõõta riigi heaolu, on sisemajanduse kodutoodang (SKT) elaniku kohta. Rahvusvahelise Valuutafondi poolt 2010. aastal avaldatud andmete järgi asus Norra teisel kohal, Taani viiendal, Rootsi seitsmendal, Soome 14. ja Island 20. kohal.

Kui aga vaadata nii-öelda „pehmeid“ näitajaid, siis olukord ei ole kuigi erinev. Ajakirja Forbes andmetel, mis põhinevad Gallup World Poll'i küsitlusel, on neljas Põhjala riigis kõige õnnelikumad inimesed maailmas. Üksteise järgi on esineljakus Taani, Soome, Norra ja Rootsi. Island asus selles 2010. aastal avaldatud nimekirjas 23. kohal, mis peegeldab riiki hiljuti räsinud finantskriisi.

Põhjala paradoks

Enamus ei vaevagi ennast statistikaga. Piisab vaid käia Skandinaavias ja veenduda, et teed on tõepoolest seal siledad, majad korralikud, loodus hästi hoitud ja inimesed üldiselt oma eluga rahul.

Millel põhineb Põhjala edu? Ja kui kaua veel see saab niimoodi kesta? Kõrged maksud, suur riigisektor, helded sotsiaaltoetused – see kõik on ju vastuolus enamike majandusõpikutega Eestis, mis põhinevad angloameerika liberalismi ideedel? Kas mõne aasta pärast ei ole Põhjamaad sunnitud oma lähenemist muuta?

Jonnakad põhjamaalased taguvad aga oma rauda. Viimasel Davosi kohtumisel, kuhu koguneb maailma poliitiline ja majanduslik eliit, esitasid viis põhjamaa riigipead Põhjala mudelit kui elujõulist alternatiivi teistele. Nad rääkisid veendunult, et see mudel soodustab innovatsiooni ja tõstab riikide konkurentsivõimet.

Vaevaline teekond harmoonilise ühiskonnani

Põhjamaade üks tugevamaid aluseid on ühiskonnas valitsev võrdsuse printsiip, ütleb Norra tööandjate assotsiatsiooni vanemnõunik Vidar Lindefjeld. Ta tuletab meelde, et kuni 20. sajandi alguseni olid Norra ja teised Skandinaavia riigid vaesed maad, kus puudusid suured käärid rahva sees. Norras oma aadelkond puudus, Rootsis ja Taanis oli aadlike mõjuvõim võrreldes Mandri-Euroopaga hulga väiksem. Pärisorjust sellisel kujul nagu see oli Saksamaal või Venemaal ei olnud Põhjalas kunagi. „Ühiskonnas oli juba sajandeid tagasi teatud sotsiaalne homogeensus, kus talunik oli linnakodanikuga üsna võrdses seisus,“ selgitab Lindefjeld.

Kuid ainuüksi ühtekuuluvustundest ei piisa, et veenda inimesi, et heaolu jaotamine kõikide vahel on positiivne, ning panna neid maksma kõrged maksud. BI Norra Kommertskõrgkooli majandusajaloo professor Knut Sogner tuletab meelde, et eelmise sajandi alguses oli ka Põhjamaades vabrikute omanike ja tööliste vahel tõsine vastasseis. Töölised töötasid väga palju, kuid said viletsat palka, nende elamistingimused olid armetud. Oli tõsine revolutsioonide oht nagu Venemaal.

Samal ajal võtsid Põhjamaad aktiivselt osa rahvusvahelisest kaubandusest. Sogneri sõnul olid need maad lausa sõltuvad ekspordist. „1920.-1930. aastate majanduskriisid sundisid erinevad pooled oma relvad maha matma,“ ütleb Sogner ja lisab, et probleemid rahvusvahelises majanduses olid lihtsalt niivõrd tõsised, et sisemised konfliktid pidi ühel või teisel viisil lahendama. Tööandjad vajasid stabiilsust kodumaal, et suuta oma kaupa jätkuvalt eksportida, samal ajal mõistsid töölised, et nad saavad teenida rohkem kui nad ei streigi.

Sellest ajast peale on kollektiivsed palga- ja muud läbirääkimised muutunud Põhjamaades pigem reegliks. Seda soodustab ka ametiühingute jätkuvalt tugev positsioon ühiskonnas. Sõltumatu uuringite sihtasutuse Fafo teadusdirektor Jon Erik Dølvik toob näite, et Norras on tänapäeval 53% kõikidest töövõtjatest ametiühingute liikmed. „Chicago School [Chicago koolkond majandusteaduses, mis põhineb liberaalsetel vaadetel ja mille austajaks peetakse muuhulgas Mart Laari] väidab selle kohta: „It can't work!“. Kuid nad ei võta arvesse, et ametiühingud Skandinaavias on palju paindlikumad kui kontinentaaleuroopas,“ selgitab Dølvik.

Töövõtjate paindlikkus võlgneb aga Knut Sogneri sõnul sellele, et ametiühingute esindajad istuvad ettevõtete juhatuses. „Seetõttu teavad töövõtjad, et kui firmal läheb halvasti, siis ei ole tõepoolest tööandjal raha, et suuremat palka maksta. Tulemusena panustavad tööandjad firma pikaajalisse edusse, kuna näevad, et selle edu kajastub ka nende palkadele,“ väidab tema.

Avatus maailmale viib kõrgete palkadeni

Endises sotsialistlikus leeris olid ametiühingud samuti tugevad. Kuid erinevalt Nõukogude Liidust ja selle sateliitriikidest võtavad Põhjamaad globaalsest kapitalismist maksimumi. Sogneri sõnul on ekspordisektor kõigis Põhjala riikides olnud traditsiooniliselt väga suur. „Rahvusvaheliselt avatud tööstus viib aga selleni, et palgad ei saa olla väga kõrged ja töövõtjad peavad seega tööandjatega koostööd tegema,“ järeldab Sogner.

Jon Erik Dølvik on sellega nõus. Tema väitel on kõrged tasud Skandinaavias käinud kaasas kõrgenenud produktiivsusega. Samas on see alati olnud ettevaatlik tõus – töövõtjad on mõistnud, et liiga kiire palkade kasv viib nende ettevõtted ja lausa terved tööstused riigist välja.

Tasakaalustatud liidrid

Põhjamaade üks eriomadusi peitub Vidar Lindefjeldi väitel võimueliidi poliitilises tahtes jaotada rikkust ja heaolu. Õiglase valitsemise traditsioon ulatub tema sõnul keskajasse, kui taani ja rootsi kuningad austasid oma alamate teatavat autonoomiat.

Selle ilminguid on Knut Sogneri sõnul olnud näha ka Põhjamaade uusimas ajaloos. Tänu laialdastele sotsiaalsetele kokkuleppetele muutusid eelmise sajandi esimesel poolel demokraatlikumaks nii kodanlusparteid kui ka tööliste erakonnad. Sotsialistidest said sotsiaaldemokraadid. Viimased olid Skandinaavias võimul valdava osa 20. sajandi teisest poolest. Kuid samas märgivad nii Sogner kui Dølvik, et erakapitali esindav opositsioon oli kogu aeg väga tugev ja sotsiaaldemokraadid pidid oponentide vaateid arvesse võtma. Selline tasakaalustatud süsteem on nende sõnul osaliselt põhjuseks, et korruptsiooni tase Põhjalas on üsna madal – ühel jõul ei lastud kunagi olla ainudomineeriv.

Endise majandusajakirjaniku, nüüdse ettevõtja ja kirjaniku Kathrine Aspaase sõnul on Skandinaavia õnn peitnud selles, et seal ei ole poliitikud kunagi olnud Berlusconi tüüpi. See aga on Aspaase väitel omakorda tugevdanud lojaalsustunnet riigi suhtes ja usaldust poliitikute vastu.

„Inimene on hea“

Aspaas jätkab, et nii-nimetatud Põhjala mudel on inimkeskne. „Enamus kultuuridest ja religioonidest näeb inimestes pahupoolt: et nad on patused, nad on sündinud häbiga. Põhjala mudel kultiveerib aga positiivset nägemust inimestest: et nemad on loovad ja iseseisvad,“ ütleb Aspaas. Kui süsteem eeldab selle liikmetelt eelkõige kurja, siis vajab igaüks käske ja tugevat võimu. Põhjamaade mudel põhineb Aspaase sõnul aga printsiibil, et inimesed ei oota, et keegi ütleks neile kogu aeg, mida tuleb teha.

Positiivne hoiak inimese kui indiviidi suhtes väljendub muuhulgas tunnustuses, et naised ja mehed on võrdväärsed, ütleb Aspaas. See aga tagab olukorda kui kõigi inimeste potentsiaal on kõige paremini ära kasutatud. Jon Erik Dølvik on selle arvamusega nõus. Tema sõnul avaldub naiste ressurside hea kasutus muuhulgas korralikus lasteaedade süsteemis, mis võimaldab naistel kauem osaleda tööelus.

Dølvik väidab, et põhjamaalased on võrdlemisi koostööaldid ja teistest indiviididest lugupidavad tänu tugevale kodanikuühiskonnale. Osavõtt spordiorganisatsioonides, kultuuriklubides ja kõikvõimalikes seltsides on Põhjalas olnud traditsiooniliselt väga kõrge. Dølvik selgitab selle olulisust näitega enda elust: „Ma mängin vabal ajal jalgpalli. Olen pikka aega kuulunud ühte kohalikku jalgpalliklubisse. Ja seal on ju kõik koos – kõrge ja madala haridusega... ma saan koos tegutseda väga erinevate inimestega.“

Muutuma sundivad väljakutsed

Kuid kõik ei ole sugugi roosiline. Vidar Lindefjeld räägib, et viimastel aastatel esitavad inimesed Norras üha suuremaid nõudmisi avalikule sektorile. Tema sõnul on põhjamaalased oma heaoluga väga harjunud ja ootavad, et riik teeks nende eest üha rohkem ära. Jon Erik Dølvik on selle arvamusega nõus: „Helde heaoluriik töötab vaid siis kui paljud on tööl. Kuid hiljutine tendents on see, et vanemate inimeste, sotsiaalabi saajate ja halvasti integreeritute inimeste hulk kasvab.“ Põhjala mudelit seavad küsimuse alla Knut Sogneri sõnul ka muutuvad väärtused nooremate inimeste seas: individualiseerimine, tugevam eneserealiseerimise tahe.

Dølviku sõnul ei saaks Põhjala mudel muutumata kujul kindlasti kaua kesta, sest väljakutsed on tõsised. Tema väitel on selge, et poliitikud ja teised peavad kohanduma, riigi poliitika peab uuenema, aga see on juba toimumas. Knut Sogner märgib samuti, et Põhjala mudeli üks tugevus on just selle paindlikkus. Ta toob näite, et viimasel kolmekümnel aastal on Skandinaavia majandust iseloomustanud liberaliseerimislaine, samal ajal kui teatud sotsiaaldemokraatlikud põhimõtted nagu võrdusprintsiip on jätkuvalt jäänud väga tugevaks.

Kõige tugevam sõltub tugevuselt teisest

Eestist vaadates tundub vahel ikkagi kummaline, miks inimesed on nõus maksma kõrgeid makse ja andma osa oma tulust ära selliste inimeste toetamiseks, kes on selles ise tihtipeale süüdi. Jon Erik Dølviku sõnul ei ole pärast paljusid aastaid kollektiivset sundi üllatav, et Eesti ühiskonnas valitsevad individualistlikud väärtused ning skeptilisus võimude suhtes. Kuid ta märgib: „Parimad on sõltuvad paremuselt teistest. Muidu langeb terve tase. See on nagu spordis, nagu jalgpallis. Kui on olemas vaid üks tugev meeskond, siis ajapikku muutub ka see rahvusvaheliselt nõrgaks, kuna ta ei saa oma keskkonnas dünaamiliselt areneda.“

Dølvik näeb liigses liberaalmajanduslikus korras Eesti-suguste väikeste riikide jaoks selget ohtu. Ta selgitab, miks ei tasu alati kopeerida USA mudelit: „Eesti jaoks on raske kultiveerida „American Dream'i“. Reaalsus on see, et kui ühiskonnas propageeritakse põhimõtet „The Winner Takes It All“, siis need vähesed, kes suudavad palju kapitali teenida, investeerivad seda teenitud kapitali suures osas välismaale, sest väikses riigis napib suuri tulusid toovaid projekte. Tulemusena ei võida ühiskond sellest midagi.“

Põhjala-taolise heaoluriigi vastu suunatud kriitikat oleks kõige loogilisem otsida kapitalistide seas. Kuid Norra Tööandjate Assotsiatsiooni esindaja Vidar Lindefjeld ütleb, et Põhjala mudel on vaatamata teatud kuritarvitamisele üksikindiviidide poolt väga mõistlik lahendus. Tema sõnul on Põhjala mudeli tugevus eelkõige selle stabiilsuses, mida hindavad kõrgelt ka tööandjad. „Ka Skandinaavias on palju rikkaid inimesi nagu igal pool. Kuid samal ajal on terve ühiskond saanud osa sellest rikkusest,“ väidab tema. Rääkides suhtelisest rikkusest esitab Lindefjeld muigades retoorilise küsimuse: „Kui sina teenid kümme miljonit eurot aastas ja mina teenin „vaid“ ühe – kas see teeb mind siis vähemõnnelikuks?“

Põhjala mudeli ekspordist välismaale

Kuigi põhjamaalased on vajadusel valmis oma ühiskonnamudeli eeliseid kaua ja põhjalikult kirjeldama, on nad üsna ettevaatlikud võimaluse suhtes seda mujale eksportida ja teisi õpetama hakata. Knut Sogneri sõnul ei ole lihtne õppida hoiakuid. Ta väidab, et oluline eeldus Põhjala mudeliks on sotsiaalse usalduse tugevus ühiskonnas, mille ülesehitamine võtab väga kaua aega.

Ka Dølvik on skeptiline Põhjala mudeli kiire ülevõtmise suhtes, sest see on tema sõnul olnud Skandinaavias saja aasta arengu tulemus. Balti riikides teeb tema väitel asja keeruliseks see, et töövõtjate organisatsioonid on üsna nõrgad: „Ametiühingud diskrediteerisid end nõukogude ajal ja usaldus nende vastu ei ole taastunud.“ Samuti on Eesti alustanud 1990.aastate alguses hoopis teisest stardipositsioonist. „Balti riigid olid ilma korraliku sisemise struktuurita, mis reguleeriks tööelu riigi sees, kui nad astusid rahvusvahelisse konkurentsi kohe pärast iseseisvuse taastamist. Norral ja teistel Skandinaavia riikidel oli mitme kümnendi jooksul taoline struktuur ennem olnud,“ selgitab Dølvik.

Samal ajal möönab tema, et baltimaalastel on palju ühist Põhjala inimestega. Kui lähiajalugu kõrvale jätta, siis on paljud teised eeldused Balti riikides tegelikult olemas. Küsimus on vaid ühiskonna valmiduses ja tahtes.

Visualising Norwegian international trade and investments

I prepared a presentation for my Norwegian class today. It is about Norwegian foreign trade and investment flows with abroad.

Having acquired statistical data from Statistical Bureau of Norway, I did a little bit of data-mining and then created quite nice visualisations of who Norway trades with, which countries Norway invests and who invests in Norway. I am known fan of visualising complicated things to make them more comprehensible. This time I used great technology developed by Hans Rosling an his team which was later bought by Google and made usable for everyone having their own Google account and knowing how to use Google Docs.


The beauty of these visualisations is that it allows to notice progression, the speed with which both international trade and international investments have grown in the past 10-12 years. It also allows to easily recognise proportions of importance of particular countries for Norway in economical terms.


Particular results which are visible there:

• Economically, the most important are Norway's North European neighbours - Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, UK, the Netherlands (one cannot get away from USA, of course, either).
• China's growth as one of the largest importers of the goods during past decade is impressive
• Norway has been investing a lot into Belgium. What is the explanation behind it?..

In order to get the full overview of the time dynamics, one needs to press the "Play" button in the graphs below (down-left corner of a graph).

Flow of international trade in Norway 1999-2010



Flow of international investments in Norway 1998-2009

Visiting the fjords area in the Western Norway

Almost exactly one month ago I had an incredible luck to visit a fantastic area of the fjords in the Western Norway. That is the region where my friend Sveinung comes from - who was kind enough to invite me and Sergio, the common friend of ours to visit his home area.

Only now I sat down to write a little bit about it and put out a few pictures from this trip.

We spent there just three days. Very intensive days these were!

Day 1: Sailing in the fjord

Day 2: Wind-surfing in the ocean

(the first time in my life I was surfing - I almost manage to stand up on the board) :)

Day 3: Climbing a mountain next to the bay where we had surfed the day before

I must admit that I enjoyed climbing the most - I love mountains, I love hiking atop of them.

And, once again, I realized how incredibly beautiful is the nature of Norway.

Talents back home or six economic reasons for not emigrating

Recently, there came another small positive news from Estonia. Initiated by some proactive people there, a new project has been started some weeks ago. It's called "Talendid koju" (its slogan in English sounds as following: "Let's bring talents back to Estonia"). Its purpose is to facilitate exchange of information between the most outwards-oriented Estonian companies and organisations on one hand, and the talented young people of Estonian origin studying and/or working abroad. The objective is obvious: to make sure that many young people would actually come back to Estonia - those who are uncertain about the future in connection to their homeland.

A very good initiative in any case!

I don't know if I am really qualified to be called a "talent", but I am not yet going back to my homeland. The reason is... love :) My dear reason has come to Norway to study for two years in the Master programme at the very business school which I am graduating from. So, we have decided to stay for another two years in Norway.

Interestingly, many - both in Norway as well as in Estonia - find it so natural that people like me want to stay in Norway for a longer period of time (or even emigrate here)... Well, I love Norway - I am a total fan of this society - it's by far one of the best countries in the world to live. The overall standard of living is without any doubt higher here, the society is on the higher level of development, but...

...here are my six economic reasons why I don't plan to stay much longer in Norway (you never know though):

1) It's nice that there are high salaries in Norway. However, it's somewhat misleading without taking a look at the level of prices. They are prohibitively high in many cases. The average salary might be six times higher in Norway than in Estonia. At the same time, the food prices are 2-3 times, the apartment rents in the capital are 3-4 times, and the beer prices 4-5 times higher in Norway.

2) Well, someone can argue that the difference is still large. Yes, it is. It's especially nice to travel and shop around abroad when having incomes in Norway. But I wrote about the average prices here. As a foreigner, without previous connections and profound understanding of the society, with relatively poor command of the language, you are always naturally limited in (a) what you can achieve and (b) how fast you can achieve it. I have much more natural advantages in Estonia, not abroad. Thus, the probability that I will get higher than average incomes is also higher in Estonia - be it through the paid job or the venture revenues.

3) People don't usually take into consideration additional direct costs involved in the life abroad - costs of travelling home and back, long-distance calls, the need to buy some things you already have back home (which might be more expensive to bring).

4) Norway is a stable well-developed society. What is there to change? What is there to really contribute to? If I was to be happy with an average level of salary and bourgeois everyday security, that would be a good option. My ambitions are definitely higher. I want to feel that I can make THE difference. And it's much higher probability to make this difference in the country like Estonia or Kazakhstan. Thus, there is an opportunity cost translating into lowering personal ambitions when living abroad.

5) Perhaps most importantly, Estonia is the country that I feel the strong mental connection with. My parents and grand-grandparents were born there. I love to be there. I love Estonian nature and Estonian food. That's my place. No further explanation is needed. Thus, there are additional social and emotional costs involved in living abroad for an extensive period of time.

6) It's quite rare I can hear young people from different countries speaking about the responsibility towards their homeland. I feel that I bare this responsibility towards both the nation as a whole as well as my parents. Both have invested in me - with the financial means and otherwise. I feel the moral obligation to pay back - with my efforts, dedication and care.

Thus, taking into account all these costs and the moral reasoning, it's not at all so obvious that you are better off in another country which has higher standard of living than the one you were born to.

Cycling is my passion - 30 km every day

Those who know me better are mostly aware of one of my ultimate passions - cycling. I sincerely believe that the bicycle has been one of the best inventions of the humankind.

I don't use a bicycle for working out. I use it for recreational purposes sometimes. But most of all, a bicycle is a means of transportation for me.

I used to cycle to and from the work/study locations in the different cities I happened to live before - Tartu, Tallinn, Brno and Berlin. The other cities were just not too suitable for biking (like Split with its narrow medieval streets or Almaty with its traffic jams and sometimes crazy driving culture).

This summer I bought a used bicycle (and the basic equipment) here in Oslo (at the picture on the left). Ever since (for almost two months by now) I have not used the public transportation nor any other means of transportation.

It has been a great exercise for me - I live in a totally different edge of the city from the location of my work. The distance is exactly 15 km one way, which means that I am cycling at least 30 km every working day. And the weekend is no different either - whenever I need to get somewhere more far away from my house than a walking distance. Oslo is situated in a very hilly area - thus, my way is always full of going up and down. I bought the water-proof jacket, the trousers and the cover for the shoes - thus, I am cycling in wind and rain as well.

...and I love it!

It takes me just 5-10 minutes more than the bus, yet I am not dependent on any bus schedules, I'm not wasting my time on commuting and I don't contribute to the traffic pollution. And I feel great both physically and mentally every day thanks to the regular physical exercise. I am planning to cycle as long as I can until the snow and ice will appear here in Oslo.

In addition, bicycle has been a great help for me in order to discover Oslo. I have got the detailed maps of the different parts of Oslo outlining interesting sightseeing spots in the city and around - sometimes, in totally unexpected locations. During the past weekends - when I felt like taking a rest from the studies and other duties - I took the bike, the maps and went to discover the city. By now, I can claim I know the city much better than many of its long-term inhabitants.

There is only one friend of mine of my age who, like me, doesn't have the driving license yet. That might sound strange for many. But I don't miss it. I have never had any special passion for cars. How long can I stay without one? Let's see. But for now I am bicycling and hope to continue with it until the old age. In fact, this is so important for me that I am certainly going to consider cycling opportunities as a transportation whenever choosing where to live and work (specific locations).

In general, I see it as one amazing advantage of the Norwegian society. People do a lot of sport here, they spend a great deal of time outside. While families in many other countries waste most of their weekends in the shopping malls and in front of TV, many Norwegian families go for hiking, sailing, fishing, cycling, skiing, and so on instead (of course, Norwegians shop around and watch TV too). I feel very comfortable with this aspect of the Norwegian society.

Norway is the best place to live in the world

According to the annual UN human development index, Norway is indeed the best country to live in. The index takes into account life expectancy, literacy rate, school enrolment rate and the country economy.

What I as a foreigner having lived for longer than one month in four different countries before and living now in Norway can say about it? Is it really the best place to live?

Below are my personal reflections on that matter which I have gather throughout past 15 months of living here, talking to different people (both Norwegians and foreigners like myself), reading books and articles about it.

Why it is (arguably) not good to live in Norway?

• The weather can be depressive at times. Not so much sun, long and dark winters, much rain - hardly fitting an image of paradise.
• People may not seem that friendly and talkative, hard to get friends.
• People (especially young ones) may seem not being able to have fun without getting utterly wasted and losing their human dignity.
• If you are an entrepreneur, be ready to be taxed heavily. Not the country to get very rich easily.

As for me, well, I am not very much influenced by the weather. In fact, I like Nordic/Baltic kind of weather much more than the one in South - I cannot really stand the heat. And I don't mind rain/snow at all.

Coming from Estonia, I do not expect to call a guy I know for couple of days a "friend". Besides, Norwegians are, as a matter of fact, much more helpful than many others.

I do not usually miss going to the parties, so as for humble opinion, people can get as drunk as they like unless they harm the others.

One cannot get very reach in Norway easily indeed. On the other hand, it's hard to get very poor here too - I am going to come to this one next.

Why is it good to live in Norway?

• Whatever work you do - shop assistant, waiter, bus driver - you are paid as much as to be able to afford quite a decent life. And I mean it - every Norwegian can afford to go on a vacation abroad at least once a year, everyone can eat healthy and diverse food, everyone is able to have a nice apartment. If there are some poor people here, they are poor by choice.
• Great social security - health insurance, unemployment 'safety net', pensions for older people and for people with disabilities - everything is in place and is available for everyone to use.
• Nice green cities without excessive traffic jams or high air pollution.
• Good education available for everyone - the level of education is rated among the highest in the developed countries by the OECD.
• Stable economy not generating high levels of unemployment. Now, in the midst of economic recession, Norway has unemployment between 2,5 and 3 per cent (for comparison, average in Europe around 6-7%, in USA around 10%).
• Equal opportunities for all members of society (no society can be completely equal, of course - that's nonsense) - women get roughly the same wage as men, homosexuality is not considered a disease, being a non-Norwegian descendant is neither shameful nor disadvantageous.
• There is a lot of beautiful, unspoiled nature that is taken care of.

Anyone reading this blog post can perhaps understand what is my opinion on whether it is good to live in Norway...

If I was to dig a little bit deeper...

...what are the reasons of Norway being arguably the best country to live in?

This list is a subjective, yet is based on careful observations and analysis.

• In my opinion, the most important, the social trust. I can indeed trust people here. I am not afraid of theft or cheating as much as anywhere else I have lived so far. That minimizes such phenomena as corruption or discredit towards the others.
  
• Norwegians behave (in by far the most of the cases) in a sober and sensible way. No rush, no excessive emotions, people listen to the others. It prevents many dangerous situations and allows for a careful analysis and good planning.
  
• Respect for a human life and basic human rights. Unless you behave against the norms of society (criminal, drug-addict etc), you can expect your human dignity to be untouched.
• Quite innovative nation which strives for constant improvements. It has its traits of conservatism, but just exactly as much as needed to preserve social norms and values.
  
• Effective economic and social model based on consensus. No major quarrels in politics, no big disasters in the economy (in comparison to elsewhere).
• Somewhat luck. The discovery of the oil in the North Sea in the 1970s has definitely helped. However, even when adjusting economic performance for all non-oil&gas related activities, Norway still has one of the most effective economy in Europe.

The list can probably go on further...

...but what are the conclusions?

When having expressed such thoughts of mine here in Norway, I was accused to be over-optimistic in these respects. Well, I say - do not do mistake - I am not claiming Norway is a perfect country. But Norway is definitely the best country in many respects from what I have seen so far.

One indication: from conversations with my class-mates of non-Norwegian origin I've understood that virtually all of them would like to stay in Norway after the graduation.

Will I be one of them? Never say never. But it does not belong to my best-case scenario as for now. :)

P.S. All photos here are from my own collection - all made in Oslo and Oslo area.

All people are equal - thank you, AIESEC, for reminding it!

I was a chair at national conference of AIESEC Norway about a week ago - meaning leading the whole process of conference, making sure everything runs smoothly, leading its flow. Apart from the nice feeling of having been back to AIESEC for a while and having done something useful for dozens of young people, I made one striking conclusion again - this conference was absolutely the same and the people here behaved in absolutely the same way as everywhere else at the national conferences which I have been to - in Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan. They were dancing, laughing, joking, having troubles with their responsibilities, having dreams for a future just like any other AIESEC member in Kazakhstan or Croatia, for example.

Sure, people in Norway, as true Nordic nation, are somewaht less expressive and more calm... but essentially there is just no difference!

It may sound very trivial thing to say that all people are essentially the same... but after having spent about six months in Norway, I started to have a feeling that there is something about people in different countries. Why do Norwegians live a life that 90% of world's population cannot match in even a close way? How come this society is so well-organised, secure and peaceful (there are surely many problems here as well, but compared to most of other countries it's paradise in terms of social quality fo life)? Are people here somehow smarter or more developed?

AIESEC as international youth organisation is an excellent place to prove that people, once put in similar conditions, are no longer a product of their societies. They are individuals instead, who can perform, achieve and be successful, despite their ethnicity or nationality.

Bad luck and bad governance are probably two most prominent reasons for people to suffer in so many corners of the world...

"All men are created equal" - the U.S. Declaration of Independence proclaimed more than two centuries ago. I am not completely sure if it is so. But if there is any inherited mental difference between us, humans, it definitely does not lie in geographical place of birth. Human stupidity is universal. Luckily, compassion, care and determination to create a peace where others don't believe it happening are universal virtues too.

Here is one AIESEC alumnus who proves the latter sentence:

CyberWatcher - the company I am working for

I am working in the company called CyberWatcher since the middle of October. It is the part-time job (15-20 hours a week) which allows me to study in university, develop professionally and have stable earnings. The latter is important when you live in one of the most expensive countries in the world :)

CyberWatcher is a small Norwegian company established by AIESEC alumni, Morten. AIESEC has actually connected two of us. I'm generally quite happy with the way I manage to capitalise on my AIESEC connections and my network (and it is just one part of what has AIESEC experience given to me!). Morten has established and is CEO of the company.

As the name of the company says, we watch the cyber-space there :) And that is actually pretty much concised business-model of the firm: any client who wants to be updated with certain news about certain things from certain online sources, can get such service from us.

Since the time I was studying Journalism and Communication in Estonia, I have been interested in information management as well as effective information and communication skills (in terms of organisations rather than individuals). The work in CyberWatcher gives me opportunity to learn about the ways people and organisations can have more effective information management thanks to certain software platform. What is good about our service is the fact that it can be implemented everywhere in the world by everyone who speaks English.

As I am not the man created to work in big organisations, I very much like the fact the company has nine employees in Norway together with me (in additions, few more people in Sweden and the United Kingdom). It gives me opportunity to work on different tasks and projects. In fact, I don't have any precise job title or job description. Latter would be rather a disturbant factor for a freedom-loving, independent and critical person like me :)

Another nice coincidence is that Morten, the head of the company, has graduated from the same business school I am enrolled in (BI Norwegian School of Management). He respects my studieds and my AIESEC experience and gives me quite a lot of freedom.

It is actually a working culture in Norway in general - people are not being pushed or overly supervised. My colleagues all come and go in different times of the day, in case of neccesity they work from home. I find it all very welcoming - this is one of many aspects why Norway is so well-developed and quite harmonic society (compared to vast majority of other countries), in my opinion.

Women will save the world

I currently live in Norway, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world - it has among the highest GDP per capita. Recent Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum reveals that Norway also leads the world in closing the gender gap between men and women. I live in the country which provides the most equal opportunities for women in social, political, economical and health terms.

Coincidence?

The report shows that by far not. Although not 1:1, there is a very clear evidence of correlation of prosperity of the nation and its ability to close the gap between men and women.

I have recently spoken to one smart Norwegian businessman/traveller/anthropologist (he has probably visited over 100 countries during his life) in his 50s. He said he did not believe the society was able to advance very much on the long run if women were not given opportunity to influence events there. Indeed, women save by nature - social welfare, state harmony, social security - all that is rather typical for females. Conquest, competition and risk - those are words rather typical for men. As one my male friend from Latvia put it in a straightforward way: while women care about agreement and harmony, men simply put their d***s on the tables and start to compare their size.

All in all, it is not that black and white, but I am a firm believer that no society will ever achieve a peace and harmony within itself and with the others unless women there are given opportunity to fully participate in the social, economic and political life of the country.

Interesting: Estonia has 37th rank, Kazakhstan 45th and Croatia 46th rank among 130 countries which have been assessed. Croatia dropped dramatically (I wonder where this drop is coming from?). Kazakhstan scores almost the best in this list among the countries with predominantly Muslim population, which is yet another example of how big potential this country has if things will be led in the right direction.