The government wants to spend half a billion kroner on an experiment to get young people working. It is an exciting initiative.
But now that we are starting to test new solutions, why stop there? We are facing major, unresolved challenges in NAV (the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration), the healthcare system, and schools—areas that are crying out for more knowledge and less speculation.
In his speech presenting the government's proposed state budget, Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg said that several governments have tried to get more people into work, but not as successful as needed.
To gain more knowledge, the government will implement a trial scheme with a targeted tax deduction for young people.
Around 100,000 people in their 20s will be randomly selected. Critics have called it unfair and a lottery, but as NHH professors Guttorm Schjelderup and Jarle Møen have pointed out: This is not a lottery, but a randomized controlled trial.
The gold standard for finding out what actually works. Such experiments should not be the exception, but the rule.
At the same time, we should also dare to test the opposite way. The government's project uses a carrot, meaning a tax cut, to see if it works. What if we tried to remove, simplify, or cut measures instead? Can we achieve better results with fewer resources? Instead of just asking, "what more can we do?", we should also ask, "what can we stop doing?"
Take NAV. What works best to get individuals that have been out of the workforce due to illness back to work? Is it stricter follow-up, more flexibility, or digital tools? Instead of discussing ideologically, we should test and measure.
The healthcare system is another example. Waiting times for child and adolescent psychiatry are long and stressful. What if one region tried a digital, low-threshold service for a random selection of referrals, and we compared the results? Perhaps we would get both faster help and better effectiveness at a lower cost.
The same applies to schools. We know that early intervention prevents dropout. Why not try out a model where at-risk students get a mentor and a relevant part-time job—and measure if more complete their education?
Some believe the state should not experiment on its citizens. But the truth is that we already do it—just without measuring the effect. When major reforms and schemes are introduced without systematic evaluation, we spend billions without knowing if they work. That is a far more expensive experiment than any controlled trial.
Therefore, we should welcome the government's tax experiment. Not because it is perfect, but because it could be the start of a new culture in the public sector. A culture where we try, measure, and learn, instead of repeating old solutions in the hope of a new result.
It is time to build the welfare state of the future on knowledge—not just goodwill.
