Norway as a state may be rich. but the state is also very afraid of spending too much money within the country as not to drive up inflation, salaries etc. In Norway the school children do not even get free/hot lunches (compared to e.g. Sweden).
https://archive.is/20241129112123/https://www.thelocal.no/20...
I also don’t think most people realize how small these countries are. Sweden is as big as Michigan, and Norway is as big as South Carolina.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
The good old dog whistle.
It's down to politics. Nordic countries had estate systems (codified social classes) until the late 19th to early 20th century, with high class separation still until the enormous socialist reforms in the mid 20th century.
Finland in particular was a true "shithole country" until after massive reforms (that were partially mandated by the Soviet Union) after WW2. Finland had a massive famine in 1866-1868 where around 10% of the population perished. The government refused to distribute food out of fears it would make the working class lazy, and continued food exports while the people were literally starving. There was a semi-serfdom system until after the 1918 civil war.
> Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland combined have about half the population of California. And California has about 1/10th of the US population.
So they managed it even without the economics of scale.
You're also more likely to see extreme outcomes with small sample sizes. For example, if we were looking at a list of countries ordered by GDP per capital, statistically we should expect to see more smaller countries in the top and bottom of the list. It doesn't necessarily mean it's due to underlying causes like policy.
The report: https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/97c17432815a4b2291e34140748... Results translated with chatgpt:
> In general, the results from the Nordic literature were inconsistent, and several of the studies were of low quality. The majority of studies from the Nordic countries indicated that a free school meal (breakfast or lunch) had a positive effect on some dietary outcomes. Furthermore, the results suggest that a free school meal may help reduce social disparities in diet.
> A total of three Nordic studies examined the relationship between free school meals and weight, with one study showing increased weight, another showing increased waist circumference, and one showing no change as a result of a free school meal. Two Nordic studies investigated the effect of a free school meal on academic performance, but neither found a clear positive effect.
> None of the Nordic studies found a link between free school meals and absenteeism (two studies), well-being (two studies), or the school environment (two studies).
> Regarding sustainability, only one study from Denmark examined the impact on food waste. The results showed that a warm school meal led to more food waste compared to a packed lunch brought from home.
> Two studies examining the long-term effects of free school meals, implemented in the Nordic countries between the 1920s and 1940s, found that the school meal led to longer schooling and increased income.