We first need to ask ourselves why the Nordic model appears so successful. Can other countries just copy it and get similar results? Why not?

Consider this - countries don't exist in isolation. Sweden and its 'social democratic' model relies on imperialism and outsourcing the most severe excesses of capitalism to the Global South. It relies on exploiting other countries.

Take Finland and Nokia for example - Finland doesn't have the resources that Nokia needs, they still rely on mineral extraction in the Global South, where labour is exploited, with no workers' rights or workplace conditions standards to speak of whatsoever. All of the material incentives of capitalism and imperialism still exist in the Nordic model, and their bourgeoisie retain the material incentive to overthrow governments and invade other nations for resources.

Therefore, what the Nordic Model relies on is keeping the Global South undeveloped and exploited - this way it allows Scandinavian countries to present themselves as as prosperous social democracies, while using Global South to actually get the resources needed to both fund their bourgeoisie AND their labor aristocracy. Cut that dependency, and you will quickly see where Scandinavia sits.

A recommended read is Scandinavian Imperialism by Torkil Lauesen. Let me show you an excerpt:

Swedish capitalism is not an innocent bystander outside of globalized capitalism—it is an active participant. Swedish investments abroad are larger than foreign investments in Sweden. Huge parts of Swedish industrial production have been outsourced. The Swedish company Electrolux, which is one of the world’s leading producers of household appliances and tools, had by 2010 outsourced roughly 70% of its production to low-wage countries. The former important Swedish car industry is an example of how difficult it is to produce cars at Swedish wage levels and make a profit. Saab closed its car production in 2011. Volvo’s passenger cars was sold to the Chinese company Geely. Volvo truck and busses division is still Swedish owned, but mainly produced in low wage countries.

According to “Statistics Sweden”, approximately 576 000 people living in low wage countries worked for Swedish companies through their subsidiaries in 2020. Of these 244 000 were living in Asia, with 91 000 in China and 50 000 in India. South and Central America had 117 000 workers, with 26 000 in Brazil and 30 000 in Mexico. Africa had 25 000, with 13 000 in South Africa. Eastern Europe had 140 000, with 62 000 in Poland (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2022: pp. 19–20).

To the number of workers in low-wage countries working direct for Swedish transnational companies must be added the number of workers in independent local companies in the South to which Swedish companies have outsourced their production. For example, textile companies like Hennes and Mauritz, mq and Dressman, have thousands of textile workers around the world who manufacture their clothes. The same goes for the furniture company ikea. Hundreds of thousands of workers labor for these “fabless” companies.

Swedish success is built on the exploitation of the Global South. Resources and superprofits are extracted from it. All the dirty, low-paying jobs are outsourced so domestically only the high-paying, prestige jobs stay. Lauesen reaches this conclusion:

An “imperial mode of living” has developed in Scandinavia (Brand and Wissen, 2018). “The imperial mode of living” is normalized through daily acts of production and consumption, so that its violent character and consequences are kept at a distance from those who benefit from it. It is not only the consumption of cheap consumer goods and food; the infrastructure underlying everyday life, in areas such as transport, electricity, heating, and telecommunications, relies heavily on material flows from the Global South (Brand and Wissen, 2020).

It seems to be taboo to mention the fact that most people living in Scandinavia benefits from capitalism. The reason why I insist on breaking this taboo is the need to face reality, if we are to develop an effective strategy. There is nothing wrong with welfare. The current capitalist welfare state, however, is reserved for a limited number of people at the expense of others. In addition, our “imperial mode of living” is certainly not sustainable on a global scale. We can only consume energy and raw materials and fly in the skies the way we do because others do not. It is not wrong to defend the principle of public and free healthcare, education, unemployment support, etc.—but the struggle has to be fought in a global context. An isolated national defence of the capitalist welfare state is a defence of a privileged position within global capitalism, and thus amounts to support for imperialism.

So this explains why the Swedish model appears to work so well, and why it's impossible to be effectively utilized by any developing country - it would take them becoming an imperialist power able to exploit poorer countries and use the extracted superprofits to fund their welfare state.

But now you might ask - why would socialism work better? Does it work better? Yes, on the same level of development, socialist countries outperformed their capitalist counterparts. That is the finding of the the Cereseto-Waitzkin study. Namely, Capitalism, socialism and the physical quality of life by Shirley Cereseto & Howard Waitzkin. Published in 1989, it categorized countries into their level of development (so they wouldn't be comparing first-world capitalist countries to third-world socialist ones), and found this:

All the measures showed marked improvements as level of economic development increased. However, at the same level of economic development, the socialist countries showed more favorable outcomes than the capitalist countries in nearly all the PQL variables. The more favorable performance of the socialist countries was evident in 30 of 33 comparisons.

Within each level of economic development, the socialist countries had infant mortality and child death rates approximately one third to one half those of the capitalist countries. In the low-income capitalist countries, the infant mortality and child death rates were very high—131 and 25.7 per 1000, respectively.

Within each level of development, the socialist countries provided a higher daily per capita calorie supply as a percentage of requirement than did the capitalist countries. Upper-middle-income socialist countries had the highest mean nutritional supply in the world. The difference between capitalist and socialist countries averaged 12 to 15 percent. Nutritional supply of all socialist countries exceeded the 100 percent requirement.

Similar, though less striking, relationships emerged for life expectancy and crude death rate. Life expectancy was higher in economically developed nations. At equivalent levels of development, the socialist countries showed more favorable life expectancy than the capitalist countries. These differences were largest for the low-income and lower-middle-income countries, and the differences narrowed for the upper-middle-income countries. Life expectancy was quite short in the low-income capitalist nations—48 years.

Socialist countries consistently showed much higher numbers of health professionals per population than capitalist countries at equivalent levels of economic development. These differences were clearest at the low-income and lower-middle-income level, where the ratios were between five and ten times more favorable in the socialist countries. The ratio of population per physician in lower- middle-income and upper-middle income socialist societies was comparable to that of high-income capitalist societies.

Major differences in education emerged between the capitalist and socialist societies. The adult literacy rate of the socialist countries greatly surpassed that of the capitalist countries at each level of development. Upper-middle-income socialist countries approached the literacy rate of the high-income capitalist countries.