Talk:Social market economy/Archive 2

Suggestion for Lead variant 6
Would this be acceptable for the lead? The present lead lacks a concise description of what the social market economy is - i.e. its defining features and how it compares with other forms of capitalism. The version I have proposed resolves that issue. - Battlecry 10:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, this is absolutly unacceptable for the lead. Please stop to pull our legs. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Social Market Economy was implemented by the CDU. Alfred Müller-Armack did not have a major role at start realy other than being the inventor of the Term "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" and being one of the economical experts advising political leaders in the CDU. Ludwig Erhard actualy "started" the Social Market Economy with Leonhard Miksch who was a schoolar of Walter Eucken and the leading expert in market theory among the ordoliberals. Leonhard Miksch wrote the "Leitsätzegesetz" for Erhard in 1948. Also there was Franz Böhm, leading expert of Competition law among the ordoliberals and Member of german parlament of the CDU, who wrote major parts of the law against Cartels. It wasnt until 1952 that Müller-Armack became an department chief under Erhard and until 1958 that he became Secretary of State, again under Erhard. So your suggestion for Lead-in isnt completely wrong for a start but it leaves out far tomuch and thereby leaves a wrong first impression. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is certainly correct. Bottom line is that Mr. Mustard will never agree to anything but his own suggestion. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess we have to live with that for now but that shouldnt bother us tomuch. Lets try the "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"*-trick (*Steven Stills) 8D --Kharon2 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The opposite is true. I am the only one here who attempts to come to a compromise. I started two sections on this talk-page without any feedback ( and ). You desperately wish for changing the current lead of the blocked article but you are not willing to reason what is inadequate with the current lead. Instead of reasoning at last why you wish another lead you and others permanent produce new whacky suggestions for the lead. This affirms that you are not interested in a serious teamwork. What's next? You suggest to write that social market economy is a Swiss chocolate bar and you refer to an advertising as source although the term "social market economy" does not appear in this "source" at all? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ye right! Its just that we never understand you right Mr. Mustard: You write "No, this is absolutly unacceptable for the lead. Please stop to pull our legs. --Mr. Mustard 11:54, 22 February 2013" but you actualy mean ".[...]I am the only one here who attempts to come to a compromise[...]. --Mr. Mustard 13:32, 23 February 2013". --Kharon2 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Kharon or however you are naming yourself at the moment. I told you already 7 years ago that I am absolutely not interested in making conversation with you. Either you reason what is inadequate with the current lead or you shut up. Agreed? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The both of you have such a poor command of the english language you shouldn't be in here discussing such esoteric material. If you can't get these simplest of statements correct (your insults), it only leads credence to the fact that you have a damaged grasp on this expansive content. I applaud the fact you are multi-lingual but there is a limit and I believe you both (Mr.Mustard and Kharon2) have breached an unwritten contract here as editors. ✅It is acceptable. If the two of you continue in this fashion I will ask for an Arbitration Request against the two of you. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean with "✅It is acceptable"? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead section candidate by Battlecry is acceptable. I'm sorry I see why you asked, I was trying to stay on the topic of SME consensus by including that. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 00:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you accept a disgusting hoax as suggestion for the lead just because you have disagreement with two users? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't discuss the reasons I accept his submission with you if God himself asked me to. I'm saddened that you would go so far as calling the editors efforts a 'disgusting hoax'. Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you really believe that this disgusting hoax is a serious suggestion or do you just crack a joke? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Because some users are not competent to realize that this suggestion is a hoax here some hints: the assertion that the model was implemented by Müller-Armack and Erhard is sourced with the statement that the model was developed by Erhard. This is exactly what I wrote in my suggestion. The assertion that the model has roots in the economic philosophy of Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School (both is the same) is sourced with the statement that the model was worked out by the neoliberals. This is exactly what I wrote in my suggestion. The assertion that the model is a form of free market capitalism combined with a social policy favoring union bargaining and a social insurance scheme is sourced with a glossary of a newspaper that doesn't mention "union bargaining" and "social insurance" at all. Ludwig Erhard was a bitter opponent of "social insurance" so it is history-falsifying to write that he developed and implemented a model that is based on "social insurance". Do you think that Erhard was a dunce? The last sentence of that suggestion is sourced by a webpage of the website of the DGB. On this webpage the DGB declares their ideas about economy. They rages against capitalism and market economy. The term "social market economy" appears just once when they write that "social market economy" yields economic prosperity because of the "social regulation" of the trade unions. To make conclusions that this statement amounts that the model was pursued by the Social Democratic Party and the DGB is not only original research, rather it is even counterfactual. On the English website of the DGB you can read that the DGB attempts to offer their own concept of a "social market economy" which is the exact opposite of the model. German trade unions and Social Democrats always fought Ludwig Erhard's efforts to institutionalize the SME model. This fact should be depicted in the lead. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read Rhine capitalism and stop insisting (and initialising editwar) on missplaced labels like Neoliberalism and Hayek here. --Kharon2 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for Lead variant 7
--Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, i dont think thats better. Worse even than variant 6 infact. Do you have a reference for "model developed by Ludwig Erhard"? --Kharon2 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
I choose Version 6 by Battlecry with some necessary tweaks made by Kharon2. If everyone agrees with this except for Mr. Mustard then a general consensus will have been reached and the page can be unlocked and updated. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Enough already! Stop this charade! You can't enforce a corruption of historical facts by voting.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, we will develop a Version based on Version 6 everyone reasonably can agree upon. --Kharon2 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think lead section variant 1, 3 and 6 comply with wikipedia rules and are a correct summary of the most important aspects. I would suggest that we wait for Kharon2 to present his variant of version 6. After that we (hopefully) have or can work out a version on which (nearly) every user can agree upon. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is best we keep more comprehensive and specific information regarding the implementation of the social market model and the motivations behind its implementation to the body of the article and only focus on a brief definition and explanation of what the social market economy is for the lead. At the minimum, the lead should state that the Social market economy is a form of capitalism that emerged in Germany in the post-war period and was characterized by support for free-markets, collective bargaining and social insurance schemes. - Battlecry 03:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally generally prefer short and crisp leads too but i don't have a problem agreeing to extended layouts if it helps to achieve a Consensus. --Kharon2 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)P.S.: I will try to work out a version taking into account the prior versions and discussions as Pass3456 proposed but it will take some time. --Kharon2 (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delay. I will provide my proposal shortly (some more days). --Kharon (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

working on Lead consensus
Again sorry for the delay. I had some issues with the reflist so anyone with more experience is invited to fix errors or syntax. As Battlecry suggested and also generally preferred by me i made this short and general. Additional because imho, in the "international" Wiki, SME should not be described focused to much from origin German point of view in the Lead already. There is plenty of space below the Lead to sort everything more specific. Last but not least its likely easier to agree on a short and general version but however you are invited to suggest any changes or additions to this version. --Kharon (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think (and hope) we could all agree to take that as a working proposal. To add the international perspective is certainly a good idea and might even may help to understand the model a bit better. I would like to propose some changes. For one thing I would like to avoid possible "hegemony" misunderstandings. A second intention is to make a closer connection to version 6. It is meant to be open for changes, deletions and additions. I would suggest (if possible) not to open another box but to edit directly in the following box (to probably speed things up since we have to present one consensus proposal to get the article unblocked). --Pass3456 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought about including Rhine capitalism myself. In that case we should include Coordinated market economy from Peter A. Hall and David Soskice in Varieties of Capitalism too. --Kharon (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, at least from my point of view. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel this variation is acceptable but requires a few minor modifications. First, I think the last paragraph should be the opening paragraph because it describes what the social market economy actually is. The second paragraph can go into its history, and the third can talk about its philosophical basis. Secondly, I don't see how the social market economy is a mixture of a planned economy and lassiez-faire. It is a more accurate to say that it is a "middle path" between interventionist mixed economies (as promoted by Social democrats of the era) and liberal capitalism (or lassiez-faire), and did not attempt to be a third way between planned economies and market economies (planned economies refer to production and investment being planned in physical units; the social market economy was firmly committed to market-based economics). My modifications to the lead are below:- Battlecry 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "free market" is a lucky term because in my understanding that translates to "liberal market economy" as in Varieties of Capitalism. But there social market economy is categorized very fitting as "coordinated market economy". Its based on the principles of market economics as in containing free market components but its not a "free market". Additionaly almost all countries in continental Europe are categorized as social market economies, not just many: "The member states of the European Union have committed themselves to work towards a “competitive social market economy” in the Treaty of Lisbon." Thats why i used "mainstream" in my Lead. --Kharon (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Battlecry and Kharon are both correct. I think free market is usually meant as the contrary to market socialism. How about inserting the classification as coordinated market economy to avoid any possible missinterpretation? As for the Treaty of Lisbon there is a political commitment to a Social Market Economy. Nevertheless until now the reality is still mixed (certainly for southern europe or eastern europe). If you don´t mind I would like to treat the political commitment seperate from the reality of rhine capitalism. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "free market capitalism" does not fit. This is and always was at best just another utopia or more likely a fairy tale invented for political or strategical reason. 1950 in Germany 30 % of prices for private consumption goods where SET by the Gouvernement. If you both want that in the lead i suggest one of you provide at least near as good citation for that as i provided for the opposite. --Kharon (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Using the term "free market" doesn't work for me. Can someone provide the page number for source #1 so I can take a look at it. Thanks. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Alternatively: The Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtschaft) is an economic system based on a blend of market capitalism with social policy favoring union bargaining and a social insurance scheme.  "

--Pass3456 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That works for me. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is just a description of Neo-corporatism and as such a form of state(i chose that very intentional in my suggestion!), not (only) an economic system. --Kharon (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now what would you suggest? --Pass3456 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kharon, can you suggest what you think the wording should be. Also, in Kharon's original version it stated, "and is intended as a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and a planned economy." Battlecry made changes to this and explained why, but he didn't change the source. So my question is, what does the source say? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * These are the sources I found that give a short definition:
 * Social market: The name given to the economic arrangements devised in Germany after the second world war. This blended market CAPITALISM, strong LABOUR protection and union influence, and a generous WELFARE state.
 * An economic system based on a free market operated in conjunction with state provision for those unable to work, such as elderly or unemployed people.
 * ... attempts to cultivate a free market economy ... though eccepting regulation. It combines this emphasis on the free market with the institutionalisation of a set of welfare and social provisions (p. 43). --Pass3456 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term free market is acceptable to me because it designates the degree to which prices are set by the free interplay of supply and demand as opposed to being set or fixed by an organization. This is not to say that the social market economy is a pure or completely free market, the United States is hardly a perfect free market; but both are far closer to the free market spectrum than the alternative. Free markets are -not- antithetical to welfare provisions and social security; the former is a mechanism for coordinating decisions and allocating resources, the latter are public policies. As for its relation to a planned economy, the social market model rose in response and opposition to the price controls that the allies had put in place in Western Germany after the end of World War II. It is clearly not a mixture between a planned economy and a market economy; it is structurally based on free-markets (or relatively free and open markets) as well as private property. A more accurate description would be to say that it is a middle ground between mixed/interventionist capitalist economies and laissez-faire. - Battlecry 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Battlecry, would you be okay in using Pass's suggestion above (the third comment in this section). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Battlecry its not the degree of fixed or free prices that defines the category of economic model, thats only one indication. Its much more the given judicial and/or institutional frame (aka degree of regulation or framing) for an economy that defines the classic as well as new categories of capitalism. For example in German basic law (Grundgesetz Art. 14.2) you have ("Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.") translating to "Property has responsibilities. Its use should serve the community as well" unmistakably setting a strong safeguard for community. In United States Constitution you have Due Process Clause unmistakably setting a strong safeguard for liberty. --Kharon (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Kharon, we must be careful to distinguish between public policy and allocation mechanisms. The Social market economy is not a planned economy at all, not even a mixture between a market and a planned economy. That does not mean it is the same thing as a laissez-faire capitalist economy, but it is a liberal-oriented market economy nonetheless with policy measures (the welfare programs) intended to make the outcome of such processes more fair.
 * @Somedifferentstuff, I would be fine with Pass's suggestion above. But I still think "free market" or "liberal capitalism" is a more accurate and precise description than "market capitalism". - Battlecry 05:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should omit "free". --Qyerro (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Battlecry. Neocorporatism is by definition "somewhere between the free market and administration by a state bureaucracy." Not only "governmental planning" was and is seen in opposition to free market but also Corporatism. In fact Ordoliberalism was original started to fight the corporatism of the Weimar Republic. Today most european countries still represent a form of Corporatism; call it "Neo-Corporatism" or "Liberal-Corporatism" - it differs essential from "free market". --Kharon (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a bit indifferent to the exact wording. It is often the case that economic terms are not used with a precise definition. I assume that today free market economy is usually used synonymously with market economy.
 * Now we all know that a topic can be discussed to death. In the spirit to get things done and since we all gave in from our own proposals I would suggest to take the easy road and pick the market capitalism. Would that be ok? --Pass3456 (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I did some tweaking of the latest revision, including the most recent suggestion by Pass. Regarding the last sentence, in English, Christian is always capitalized, and Catholic is always capitalized when referring to something related to the Catholic Church proper.  I am not Roman Catholic, but it is more accurate to say "Catholic social teaching" rather than "christian social teaching".  I deleted the bit about Christian socialism, because it seems like a distraction.  If others feel strongly about inserting that, please make a case. -- Guðsþegn (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This latest version is acceptable to me. I think we can safely say the social market economy is a form of market capitalism.  I don't think there is any great need to be more precise than that.  I also agree that the statement about Christian socialism was unnecessary and confusing.


 * Does anybody have any other ideas of changes to be made, or should we adopt this as our lead paragraph?Dulcimermusic 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)JDefauw
 * I am in favor of adopting this as the lead paragraph. - Battlecry 06:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In favor. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK for me too. --Kharon (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect! --Pass3456 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course this is absolutely unacceptable and it is a bad joke. Stop this charade! Nothing of this suggestion can be verified by the quoted sources. It is all totally fabricated and it is the exact opposite of the historical facts that can be proved by many reliable sources. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the frame of AGF I could accept accusations without evidence from a new or inexperienced user but your very long history in this project is a towering evidence against any such assumption. --Kharon (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What "evidence" do you need to be shown? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We dont "need to be shown" evidence because we read the sources. We already have enough evidence - of highest Quality even. You "need" to provide strong evidence to make a Point to start with. Else your Point(s) aka accusation(s) should be ignored. --Kharon (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A general consensus has been reached and Mr. Mustard will just have to live with that fact. The next step is to alert the editor who locked the page so that it can be updated. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * i asked Jayron32 to unprotect. --Kharon (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article was updated. --Kharon (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done! --Qyerro (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

sort out and rework
I counted the use of names in the current Article:


 * 20x Ludwig Erhard
 * 16x Alfred Müller-Armack
 * 11x Walter Eucken
 * 6x Wilhelm Röpke
 * x5 Franz Oppenheimer
 * 4x Franz Böhm
 * 2x Konrad Adenauer
 * x2 Alexander Rüstow
 * x2 Constantin von Dietze
 * x1 Friedrich Hayek
 * x1 Ludwig von Mises

Unfortunately this looks badly weighted, some names are wrong or irrelevant here (Oppenheimer, Hayek, Mises, Dietze) more even some names (Leonhard Miksch) are missing. Especial Alfred Müller-Armack's citation of "important figures", refered by source 11 (Ingo Pies, Ordnungspolitik in der Demokratie: Ein ökonomomischer Ansatz diskursiver Politikberatung) is not a "common ground definition", however Leonhard Miksch is actualy also mentioned by Müller-Armack and Ingo Pies in the given source, in the same line but not mentioned here even once. Obviously who ever (i guess Mr. Mustard again) wrote these parts and caused this had special preferences. Any way this is not only based on uncommon, selective POV but selective in citing these source on top.

Additional its for example preposterous that Franz Oppenheimer is mentioned 3x as much as Konrad Adenauer or Alexander Rüstow. Oppenheimer was the main university teacher of Ludwig Erhard. Nothing more. His relevance here is almost as low as that of Hayek and Mises. Hayek and Mises are only well known for openly opposing social market economy. Hayek tried to make fun of term and idea "social". Nothing more worth mentioning. Leonhard Miksch was actual Ludwig Erhard's first choice "economic theory workhorse" years before Müller-Armack even started working for Erhard. Leonhard Miksch single-handed wrote the "Leitsätzegesetz" that is regarded as THE startup economic legislation basis to free up prices aka initialize a "free market" and thus regarded as THE real historical starting point of social market economy in Germany. He is not even mentioned by name once. So we need to more or less completely sort out and rework the text. --Kharon (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Total rewrite of this article is needed
The sources in this article are attempting to claim that this form of economy was founded and supported only by non-socialist and capitalist movements. This is not accurate. If there is a liberal capitalist version promoted by liberal capitalists, there is also a recognized socialist version. The book The Theory of Social Democracy on page 111, says that social democrats since the time of revisionist Marxist Eduard Bernstein have advocated a form of social market economy within socialism. It says that Bernstein opposed the idea of a planned economy proposed by orthodox socialists, and that he accepted the role of the market. Bernstein rejected socialization as manifested by state takeover of industry. Then on pages 111 to 112, the book then mentions economist Eduard Heimann who claimed that advocacy of monopoly-free markets could be the best instrument to promote the socialization of production decisions.--R-41 (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on Liberal Socialism states:


 * An early version of liberal socialism was developed in Germany by Franz Oppenheimer.[7] Though Oppenheimer was committed to socialism, his theories inspired the development of the social liberalism that was pursued by German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, who said "As long as I live, I will not forget Franz Oppenheimer! I will be as happy if the social market economy—as perfect or imperfect as it might be—continues to bear witness to the work, to the intellectual stance of the ideas and teachings of Franz Oppenheimer."[7]


 * The quotation by Erhard should somehow be included in this article.


 * Regarding Bernstein, I would give one word of caution. Bernstein wrote his most important work around 1900.  The term social market economy was coined after WWII.  To comply with WP:NOR, we won't be able to associate Bernstein with the Social market economy in this article unless an RS specifically states that there is an association between the two.Dulcimer music 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw


 * Oppenheimer has certainly relevance for Articles like Weimar Republic, Sociology and Ludwig Erhard but regarding social market economy there is already way to much myth around and focus on Ludwig Erhard here. --Kharon (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Social market economy in Scandinavia?
The article claims: "The social market economy was the main economic model used in Western and Northern Europe during the Cold War era." This is not true. Even though both the continental "social market economy" and the Scandinavian economic model sometimes are refered to as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and planned economy, the differencies are substantial. (I disregard from the fact that also the UK according to UN is considered to be part of Northern Europe, because I understand the statement in the article refering to the Scandinavian countries and not the UK.)

During the Cold War era the Scandinavian model showed no trace of the Ordoliberal and Conservative traits that constitutes the "social market economy" of the continent. In Scandinavia the mixed economy was the outcome of Social Democratic pragmatism. This is not only a question of labels.

There where substantial differencies in the set up between the market and the state. A corner stone for the ordoliberal model is an independent Central Bank with monetary stability as it's main goal. In the Scandinavian Cold War era model monetary policies was closely coordinated with fiscal policies and the Central Bank was governed by the government. The pursuit of economic policies from the state was much more active in Scandinavia, in contrast to the continental model in which the task of a strong state is to establish a stable framework and order for free market forces, and the use of active state intervention is restricted to guarantee open competition. In Scandinavia the emphasis during Cold War era was to create conditions of the market that speeded up the modernization of economy and realized large scale gains, often at the sacrifice of open competition and promotion of oligopoly or monopoly structures. The cons of decreased open competition was mastered by increased state control. The cooperation and interaction between the state and large scale private business enterprises was very close, preceding what today is named "triple helix"-cooperation between trade and industry, state authorities and (state) research community. With Sweden, Denmark and Finland joining the European union and included in the common market, the differences in the set up between state and market between a Scandinavian and Continental model has ceased, but the question here was about the Cold War era.

Also in the fields of welfare policies the differencies was (and still is) substantial. Professor Gøsta Esping-Andersen has distinguished a Social democratic Welfare regime of Scandinavia and a Conservative Welfare regime of the continental and mediterranean Europe that differs in their main features (Esping-Andersen, G., The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press 1990).

-- Anni, user of swedish Wikipedia


 * Very nice writing! I hope it can be incorporated into the article. I think Scandinavian social market economy should absolutely be mentioned in the article; it's currently way too much about Germany. Scandinavian model has been called social market economy as well. --Sigmundur (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's under nordic model and while very similar there are some differences as well (taxes in germany are often lower than in scandinavian countries) so it is good there are two article - but there should be links to each other as similar models

109.193.124.166 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Benelux are regarded closer to the Scandinavian model than to the german model yet they are categorized as social market economy. The german postwar social market economy was not the first democratic economy model with social security and is not necessary the benchmark of social market economy. Anyway England and Irland stick out to far imho so i wrote „Continental Europe“ in my version of the lead on 01:33, 16 March (still in disk below). I totaly agree that there is allot more to write here and as i am German my focus is of course most likely tomuch german POV but, maybe you dont know, we have a big Social Democratic Party in German aswell.--Kharon (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge
Following Articles for deletion/Rhine capitalism, I have merged some content from into this article. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

United States?
My sincerest apologies if this seems to be trying to use WP for discussion. However, I was surprised to see no mention of the United States in particular. Have there been no approximately similar economic movements outside Germany and Britain? Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia has special pages for questions. You may want to try Reference desk/Humanities.
 * The core difference between for example EU member states and US states in regard to the historically socalled complex "The social question" is that "Social market economy" is defined/written into the EU "constitution" and in many individual EU state constitutions as well. The US constitution contains nothing alike. Contrary even, there where for example deep conflicts between US constitutional ideas and the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt. --Kharon (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there any connections with Distributism?
I posted about this on Quora and someone says there are similarities. I see it is linked on this page. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not a common term, far as i know. As its source is the papal encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) and Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) this may be seen as reaction to the political concepts sourced from the 3 books of Karl Marx (Capital: Critique of Political Economy 1867–1883) and the connected political ideas which became very popular in that timeframe. Far as i know from these Catholic social teachings only the concept of Subsidiarity became a core part of the Social market economy. --Kharon (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence rewrite..... Which is closer to laissez-faire capitalism, ordoliberalism or the concept of the social market economy?
Could someone edit for greater clarity the following sentence from the Wikipedia article:

"Although the social market economy model evolved from ordoliberalism, this concept was not identical with the conception of the Freiburg School as it emphasized the state's responsibility actively to improve the market condition and simultaneously to pursue a social balance."

I've noted the ambiguities with asterisks and corresponding comments below:

"Although the social market economy model evolved from ordoliberalism, this concept* was not identical with the conception of the Freiburg School as it** emphasized the state's responsibility actively to improve the market condition and simultaneously to pursue a social balance."


 * Which concept, social market economy or ordoliberalism? The phrase "this concept" is too vague.


 * What does "it" refer to, social market economy, ordoliberalism, or the Freiburg School?

It is my GUESS that a more explicit but correct rendering of the sentence is as follows, but I'm not sure.

"Although the social market economy model evolved from ordoliberalism, the social market economy model was not identical with the conception of the Freiburg School. While the social market economy model emphasized the state's responsibility to actively improve market conditions and to simultaneously pursue social balance, the Freiburg School did not***."


 * Ideally, "did not" would be replaced with a brief phrase defining the Freiburg School in a contrasting manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WulfW (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)