Why We Never Hear About the Countries Where Socialism Works

utopian promises or authoritarian nightmares????

When most people hear the word socialism, the first images that flash across their minds are grim ones: long bread lines in the Soviet Union, economic collapse in Venezuela, or repression in Cuba. In popular Western discourse, socialism has been painted as synonymous with failure, inefficiency, and authoritarianism. The narrative is so ingrained that even those who’ve never studied political theory or looked closely at history reflexively think socialism equals poverty.

But here’s the paradox: many countries around the world have quietly, effectively integrated socialist principles into their political and economic systems. And they are thriving. These nations often rank among the happiest, healthiest, and most educated societies on Earth. So why don’t we hear about them? Why do their successes stay in the shadows while the failures dominate headlines?

The short answer: power, perception, and politics. The long answer is the essay you’re about to read.

---

Part I: What Do We Mean by Socialism?

Before diving into examples, it’s important to define what socialism means in practice, because the word itself has become a linguistic battlefield. For some, socialism means full state control over production and distribution. For others, it’s a mixed economy where public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure are guaranteed, while markets handle the rest.

In reality, modern socialism often looks less like Soviet central planning and more like a robust safety net combined with democratic governance. It’s universal healthcare in Sweden, tuition-free universities in Finland, and public housing in Vienna. It’s not the abolition of markets, but the idea that essential services should be protected from market failure.

That distinction matters. Because much of the West’s fear-mongering about socialism rests on outdated caricatures.

---

Part II: The Media’s Love Affair with Failure

Why do we constantly hear about Venezuela and never about Norway? Why is Cuba only framed through scarcity but not through its world-renowned healthcare system? The answer lies in how global media operates.

Western media, heavily influenced by corporate interests, tends to highlight socialist experiments when they fail, not when they succeed. A failed socialist country validates capitalism. A thriving socialist country undermines it.

Take Venezuela. For years, Western outlets have saturated the airwaves with images of food shortages, hyperinflation, and authoritarian politics. Yet when Vietnam — a socialist-oriented country — lifted nearly 45 million people out of poverty in two decades through land reforms, education expansion, and healthcare access, it barely registered in the headlines.

This is not accidental. Media reflects power. And power belongs to those with vested interests in capitalism’s survival.

---

Part III: Nordic Nations. The "Impossible" Reality

Let’s begin with the elephant in the room: the Nordic countries. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland consistently rank at the top of nearly every global index—happiness, health, education, gender equality, social trust. Yet, their systems incorporate strong socialist principles.

• Healthcare: In the Nordic countries, healthcare is considered a right, not a commodity. It is universal, publicly funded, and among the best in the world. Wait times exist, but overall access is guaranteed to all, regardless of income or social class. Sweden spends far less per capita than the United States, yet achieves better health outcomes. Norway invests heavily in preventive care, ensuring not just treatment of illness but the promotion of public health. Iceland, with its small population, has built a system where doctors and patients often know each other personally: an intimacy that breeds trust and improves outcomes.

• Education: Tuition-free universities mean that students are treated as future contributors to society, not customers in a market. Finland’s education system is legendary: there are no standardized tests, teachers are highly respected professionals, and children are encouraged to develop creativity rather than simply memorize facts. Denmark’s universities emphasize research and innovation, producing breakthroughs in medicine, green energy, and technology. In Sweden, students even receive stipends to help cover living costs, making higher education a genuine equalizer rather than a source of lifelong debt.

• Worker Protections: Strong unions are part of the fabric of Nordic society. Collective bargaining agreements cover a vast majority of workers, ensuring fair wages and humane working hours. Maternity and paternity leave policies are some of the most generous in the world, with both parents encouraged to participate in child-rearing. In Norway, parents receive nearly a year of leave combined, and in Iceland, leave is divided equally to again create gender equality. These policies are not just about family life; they breed more productive economies by ensuring workers are rested, supported, and motivated.

• Wealth Redistribution: High taxes are often demonized in capitalist discourse, yet in Nordic countries they are embraced as a collective investment. Citizens pay more, but in exchange they receive cradle-to-grave security: healthcare, childcare, education, pensions, and more. The trade-off is clear: peace of mind and dignity for all. In fact, tax compliance is high, not because people love parting with their money, but because they trust the system to use it effectively. Transparency and accountability are key; politicians in these countries know they will be held responsible if they fail.

Critics often say, “They’re not socialist, they’re capitalist with welfare.” But this binary misses the point. The Nordic model is socialism working with markets, not against them. Markets generate wealth, but socialist policies ensure it is distributed fairly and that no one falls into destitution. Far from hindering innovation or growth, this system fosters stability. Entrepreneurs thrive because they aren’t crushed by the fear of losing healthcare. Workers innovate because they know failure won’t mean homelessness. Socialism here functions as the foundation for human flourishing.

And yet, in U.S. political debates, when someone mentions adopting Nordic-style policies, opponents roll their eyes and shout “Venezuela!” The selective comparison isn’t an accident; it is an intentional strategy to keep Americans from asking, If they can do it, why can’t we?

---

Part IV: Cuba. Healthcare in the Face of Sanctions

Cuba is often invoked as a socialist disaster. True, the country faces economic hardship. But to reduce Cuba’s story to poverty ignores the extraordinary success and innovation of its socialist systems, especially in healthcare.

Despite decades of U.S. embargoes designed to cripple its economy, Cuba has built a universal healthcare system admired around the world. It produces doctors at one of the highest per-capita rates globally, and medical education is free. Cuba’s Latin American School of Medicine has trained tens of thousands of doctors, many of them international students who return home to underserved areas. This is healthcare as international solidarity.

Cuba’s medical internationalism program has sent physicians to crisis zones globally: West Africa during the Ebola outbreak, Haiti after the devastating earthquake, and Pakistan after earthquakes and floods. During COVID-19, Cuban medical brigades traveled to Europe, including Italy, to assist overwhelmed hospitals. This is a nation under blockade sending aid to wealthier countries (a fact rarely reported in U.S. media).

Domestically, Cuba’s outcomes are remarkable. The island’s infant mortality rate is lower than that of the United States, despite Cuba spending a fraction of the cost per patient. Life expectancy is nearly equal to developed nations. Primary care is community-based, with doctors living in the neighborhoods they serve, ensuring close relationships and preventative medicine. Pharmaceutical innovation has also thrived: Cuba developed a vaccine against meningitis B and, more recently, its own COVID-19 vaccines.

So why doesn’t this story dominate Western headlines? Because it’s inconvenient. If Cuba can deliver healthcare outcomes comparable to a superpower despite sanctions, what does that say about profit-driven U.S. healthcare? Acknowledging Cuba’s success would open the door to uncomfortable questions about the efficiency and morality of capitalism in healthcare.

---

Part V: Costa Rica, Uruguay, and the Quiet Successes of Latin America

Latin America is often portrayed through instability and poverty. But countries like Costa Rica and Uruguay demonstrate how socialist-inspired policies can anchor stability and progress.

Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948, redirecting funds into education, healthcare, and social services. Today, Costa Rica boasts one of the highest literacy rates in the region, near-universal healthcare, and some of the best environmental protections worldwide. Its Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social provides comprehensive medical coverage, including preventive care and chronic disease management. Costa Rica is also a leader in renewable energy, running nearly entirely on hydropower, wind, and geothermal sources. By prioritizing social investment over militarism, Costa Rica has built a resilient society admired across the globe.

Uruguay is another quiet success story. Often called “the Switzerland of Latin America,” Uruguay has one of the most progressive social systems in the hemisphere. It legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 and became the first country in the world to fully legalize cannabis, regulating it through the state. Healthcare is nearly universal, blending public and private options but ensuring affordability for all. Education is widely accessible, with a program that famously provided every schoolchild with a laptop through the Plan Ceibal initiative. Poverty has fallen dramatically, and inequality has narrowed. Uruguay’s pension system and labor protections ensure dignity for workers across generations.

These nations rarely make global headlines. Their socialism isn’t flashy, but it works. Their quiet, consistent progress proves that societies can thrive when they invest in people over profit.

---

Part VI: Vietnam …

Vietnam is fascinating. After decades of war and destruction, the country turned to a socialist-oriented market economy in the late 20th century. Beginning in 1986 with the Đổi Mới (renovation) reforms, Vietnam shifted from rigid central planning to a mixed model blending state direction with market incentives. Unlike neoliberal “shock therapy” imposed on Eastern Europe, Vietnam’s reforms were gradual, cautious, and rooted in socialist principles.

The results were transformative. Between 1993 and 2014, Vietnam’s poverty rate fell from 58% to 10%. Millions gained access to education, healthcare, and housing. The country became one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia. Today, Vietnam is a global hub for manufacturing, particularly electronics and textiles, competing with giants like China. Yet the state retains significant control over strategic sectors and continues to invest heavily in social programs.

Vietnam’s education system emphasizes broad access, with near-universal literacy and high rates of secondary school completion. Healthcare is publicly funded, though supplemented by private options, ensuring wide coverage. The nation has also invested in rural electrification and infrastructure, ensuring that growth reaches the countryside, not just the cities.

And yet, despite lifting nearly 45 million people out of poverty in just a few decades, Vietnam’s story is rarely told in the West. Why? Because it challenges the narrative that socialism cannot foster prosperity. It proves that a socialist-oriented economy can be both dynamic and equitable.

---

Part VII: Kerala, India

Even within large capitalist democracies, regional experiments can produce outcomes that rival the successes of entire nations. The Indian state of Kerala is one of the clearest illustrations of how socialist principles, applied at a local level, can dramatically improve human development outcomes. Though Kerala is not India’s wealthiest state—in fact, its per capita income has often been lower than the national average—it consistently outperforms the rest of the country in education, health, and quality of life.

The Historical Roots of Kerala’s Model
Kerala has long been governed by leftist coalitions, most notably the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its allies. Unlike in many parts of India where land remained concentrated in the hands of wealthy landlords, Kerala undertook sweeping land reforms beginning in the late 1950s. These reforms broke up feudal estates, redistributed land to the peasantry, and weakened entrenched hierarchies. For millions of rural families, land ownership was the first step toward dignity and self-sufficiency.

The state government also emphasized public investment in human capital. Unlike regions that chased industrial growth while neglecting people, Kerala prioritized education and healthcare as the foundation of development. The logic was straightforward: healthy, literate citizens would eventually drive economic and social progress.

Education and Literacy
Today, Kerala has a literacy rate above 96%, compared to India’s national average of about 74%. Literacy campaigns were launched in the 1980s as mass movements, with volunteers teaching villagers, workers, and women who had been excluded from formal schooling. Education was not framed as a privilege but as a right and a tool of liberation. Teachers in Kerala are highly respected, and schools are broadly accessible, even in remote areas.

Kerala’s focus on education has paid dividends. Women’s literacy in the state is nearly universal, and girls often outnumber boys in higher education enrollment. This gender parity is rare in many parts of the developing world. The availability of educated women has, in turn, fueled workforce participation, political activism, and community leadership.

Healthcare and Public Health
Kerala’s healthcare system is a cornerstone of its success. The state has built a wide network of public health centers and hospitals, ensuring access in rural and urban areas alike. Preventive medicine is emphasized: vaccination campaigns, sanitation drives, and maternal health programs reach deep into communities. The result? Kerala’s life expectancy hovers around 75 years—nearly a decade higher than the Indian average and comparable to some middle-income countries globally.

Infant mortality in Kerala is about 6 per 1,000 live births, versus India’s national average of 27. These numbers aren’t just statistics; they represent thousands of children surviving each year thanks to an intentional prioritization of public health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kerala was praised internationally for its early containment measures, aggressive contact tracing, and community-centered health messaging.

Gender and Social Empowerment
Kerala’s socialist experiment goes beyond health and education—it has also pioneered gender-sensitive policies and grassroots empowerment. The state’s famous Kudumbashree program, launched in 1998, is a women-centered poverty alleviation initiative. It organizes millions of women into self-help groups that pool resources, provide microcredit, and foster entrepreneurship. Today, Kudumbashree is one of the largest women’s movements in the world, giving women not just financial stability but political and social voice.

Challenges and Contradictions
Of course, Kerala is not without problems. High outmigration means that many families depend on remittances from relatives working in the Gulf states, which props up the local economy but creates dependency. Unemployment among youth is a persistent issue, partly because the state produces a highly educated population but lacks the industries to absorb them. Environmental concerns, such as deforestation and flooding, also loom large.

Still, these challenges do not negate Kerala’s extraordinary achievements. What is remarkable is that despite limited wealth, the state has consistently prioritized equity over growth-first models. Instead of waiting for industrialization to “trickle down,” Kerala built a society where social indicators are among the best in the developing world.

Kerala’s story carries a radical lesson: socialism does not require abundance. It requires political will and social imagination. The state demonstrates that with committed governance, even resource-constrained regions can achieve literacy, health, dignity, and equality that rival far richer societies.

---

Part VIII: Why We Don’t Hear These Stories

If socialism can and does succeed in a wide range of contexts, from the Nordic nations to Cuba, from Costa Rica to Kerala, then a critical question arises: why do we hear so little about these successes? Why do Western political debates fixate on the failures, the crises, or the extreme cases like Venezuela, while the positive models are treated as invisible? The silence is not accidental. It is the result of a web of ideological, economic, and geopolitical forces that shape what stories rise to prominence and what stories are buried.

1. Ideological Control: The Cold War Legacy
For most of the 20th century, socialism was positioned in the United States and much of Western Europe as the ideological enemy. The Cold War wasn’t about nuclear weapons or military standoffs—it was a battle of narratives. American schools, media, and cultural products hammered home the idea that socialism equaled dictatorship, poverty, and oppression. Generations of people grew up equating the very word “socialism” with authoritarianism, often without being able to identify the many shades of socialist thought or practice. This ideological conditioning lingers today. When Americans hear “socialism,” they are trained to think of gulags, breadlines, and totalitarian leaders, not free healthcare in Finland or universal education in Costa Rica. The Cold War ended, but the propaganda’s afterlife continues to dictate the terms of debate.

2. Corporate Interests and Media Gatekeeping
The media landscape is dominated by corporations that directly benefit from capitalism. Major outlets are owned by billionaires or large companies whose profits depend on deregulated markets, low corporate taxes, and privatization. It is against their financial interests to highlight stories of countries that thrive precisely because they rejected this model. Imagine if nightly news reports celebrated Cuba’s ability to maintain an infant mortality rate lower than the United States. Or if CNN ran regular features on Denmark’s parental leave policies and their positive effects on child development. These stories could embolden citizens to demand similar programs, threatening the profit margins of private insurers, pharmaceutical giants, and corporations that benefit from cheap, unprotected labor. The invisibility of socialist success is thus not random: it is filtered out because it disrupts the profit-driven worldview of those who control the megaphone.

3. Geopolitical Strategy and Demonization
Beyond economics, geopolitics also plays a role. Nations that embrace socialist policies often challenge U.S. or Western dominance, asserting sovereignty in ways that undermine the global hierarchy. Cuba’s persistence in providing healthcare and international solidarity despite sanctions is not just inconvenient—it is threatening. It shows that alternatives to neoliberal globalization are possible, even under immense external pressure. The same is true for Vietnam, which turned a war-torn nation into a rising economy without following the dictates of Western financial institutions. By downplaying or outright demonizing these countries, Western powers maintain the illusion that the neoliberal model is the only path to prosperity. It is not simply about misrepresentation; it is a conscious strategy to deny legitimacy to models that could inspire other nations.

4. The Appeal of Simplification and Sensationalism
There is also the media logic of storytelling itself. Failure is flashy. Economic collapse, authoritarian crackdowns, food shortages (these make for dramatic headlines and viral content). Success, on the other hand, often looks quiet and gradual. The story of Uruguay steadily reducing poverty rates through social policies is not as sensational as Venezuela’s political unrest. The capitalist media ecosystem is wired to amplify spectacle, not stability. In this sense, socialist successes are victims of their own normalcy: they function so effectively that they do not produce crises worth broadcasting.

5. Internalized Stigma and the Fear of Alternatives
Even within countries that have benefited from socialist policies, people sometimes resist labeling them as such. Politicians in the Nordic countries, for instance, are quick to stress that they are “not socialist” when foreign critics draw comparisons. This is not because they reject the values of equality or collective welfare, but because they recognize how loaded the word has become internationally. This stigmatization ensures that even when socialism works, it is often disguised under terms like “social democracy” or “welfare state.” By obscuring the socialist roots of these policies, the global narrative maintains the fiction that socialism has no real victories.

6. Who Benefits from Silence?
The question of why we don’t hear about successful socialism is, at its core, a question of power. Who benefits when socialism is dismissed as a failure? The answer is clear: the wealthy elites, corporations, and political actors who thrive under the status quo. If ordinary people were widely aware that alternatives exist—alternatives that could guarantee healthcare, education, and dignity—they might demand transformation. To prevent this, successes are hidden, discredited, or rebranded, while failures are magnified.

---

Part IX: Criticisms and Limits

Of course, socialism isn’t a magic wand. Even in successful cases, challenges remain: bureaucracy, inefficiencies, political corruption, or dependency on global markets. Cuba struggles with shortages, exacerbated by sanctions. Nordic nations rely on capitalist trade globally to sustain their social programs. Vietnam’s growth has come with environmental concerns and rising inequality in some regions.

But acknowledging limits doesn’t negate achievements. Every system has flaws. What matters is whether people’s basic needs are met and socialist-inspired models often do this better than laissez-faire capitalism.

It is also crucial to recognize how critiques of socialism are shaped by the interests of the wealthy. In the United States, policy debates are heavily influenced by billionaires and the corporations they control. These elites benefit enormously from a system that privatizes profits while socializing costs. They genuinely do not care if the poor die out, because their own wealth shields them from social consequences. To maintain this system, they invest in narratives that pit poor and working-class people against each other. Americans are encouraged to see neighbors on food stamps or families receiving welfare as “the problem,” while billionaires amass fortunes that could eradicate hunger many times over. This deliberate redirection of anger ensures that those at the top remain untouched, while ordinary people fight amongst themselves over crumbs.

Thus, the “limits of socialism” conversation is often less about flaws in policy and more about power: who benefits from highlighting failures, and who loses if successes are acknowledged.

---

The reason we don’t hear about the countries where socialism works is not because they don’t exist. It’s because their stories threaten the narrative that capitalism is the only viable path. But silence doesn’t erase reality. Democratic socialism, in its many forms, has delivered dignity, security, and opportunity to millions worldwide.

The truth is not that socialism never works. The truth is that when it does work, it becomes one of the world’s best-kept secrets.

And maybe it’s time we started telling those stories louder.

.

xoxo, signed Amie:)

---

EDIT: A Note on “Communist” Countries

I wanted to clarify a widespread misconception: the countries that identify as “communist” such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, and historically the Soviet Union are not in practice communist societies. Communism, as defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a stateless, classless society in which the means of production are collectively owned and economic relations are based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” No country has ever reached this stage. What we see instead are socialist states with varying degrees of market integration and centralized control. For example, China defines its system as “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” and they combine state ownership with capitalist market mechanisms. Cuba is as a socialist state BUT relies on a one-party political system and heavy state regulation. Vietnam uses the term “socialist-oriented market economy.” These nations are better understood as practicing forms of socialism, often mixed with authoritarian political structures, rather than communism in its theoretical sense.

This distinction matters because critics often collapse socialism, communism, and authoritarianism into a single category, which obscures important differences. Saying that Cuba or China represents “communism” is as misleading as saying that the United States represents pure laissez-faire capitalism. The Nordic countries are social democracies. They are capitalist economies with very strong socialist principles embedded in public services, taxation, and labor protections.

One common critique is that countries with robust welfare states, such as those in Scandinavia, have relatively strict immigration policies. This is true to an extent, and brings up interesting discussion points. Yes, building and maintaining social solidarity has historically been easier in relatively homogeneous societies. However, this does not negate the effectiveness of their social policies. It instead shows that applying socialism in more diverse and unequal societies like the United States will require adaptation and patience. Moreover, the claim that these welfare systems are sustained only by exploiting immigrants is misleading. Nordic countries do depend on migrant labor in some sectors, but they also invest heavily in integrating immigrants into social services, language programs, and civic life. The US…on the other hand, exploits immigrant labor without providing adequate protections or benefits.

“Socialist Principles” vs “Socialist Governments”
Another point raised is that socialist principles such as universal healthcare, subsidized education, or collective bargaining rights can be useful as supplements, but full socialism is inherently toxic. The idea that socialism is a condiment rather than a diet assumes that socialist principles must remain peripheral. In reality, countries like Finland, Norway, and Uruguay show that deeply embedding socialist principles into governance does not inevitably produce authoritarianism. Authoritarianism arises not from social ownership of certain resources, but from concentrations of political power without accountability. Democratic socialist systems demonstrate that it is possible to combine extensive public ownership and redistribution with competitive elections, press freedom, and high levels of civic trust.

China and Cuba as “Proof” of Failure
When people ask “What about China? What about Cuba?” they often imply that these examples invalidate socialist models. But China is not a communist society; it is a hybrid system blending authoritarian governance with state-led capitalism. Its economic growth has been insane, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, but it is also accompanied by inequality, censorship, and repression. Cuba demonstrates strong presence in healthcare and education despite sanctions, but faces extreme shortages and political constraints. Context matters: history, geopolitics, and cultural structures shape how socialism manifests.

The critique that “all socialist governments eventually collapse into totalitarianism” is not borne out by evidence. If that were the case, the Nordic countries democracies would have long since eroded, yet they remain some of the most free, transparent, and prosperous societies in the world. Totalitarianism can emerge under any economic system from Stalinist command economies to right-wing dictatorships that embraced free markets while crushing dissent. The safeguard is democracy itself, not the wholesale rejection of socialism.

---

*My references are in APA style.

References

Alonso, A., & Brugha, R. (2006). Rehabilitating the World’s Poor: Health Policy in Cuba. Health Policy and Planning, 21(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czj011

Anderson, P. (2009). The New Old World. Verso.

Anderson, T. (2019). Vietnam’s Development Success and the Role of Socialism. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(4), 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2019.1590234

Birchfield, V., & Crepaz, M. M. (1998). The Impact of Constitutional Structures and Collective and Competitive Veto Points on Income Inequality in Industrialized Democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 34(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00405

Central Intelligence Agency. (2023). The World Factbook: Infant Mortality Rate. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/

Chossudovsky, M. (1997). The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. Zed Books.

Einhorn, E. S., & Logue, J. (2010). Modern Welfare States: Politics and Policies in Social Democratic Scandinavia. Praeger.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton University Press.

Harris, J. (2013). Kerala’s Health Model: Lessons for Developing Nations. Lancet, 382(9896), 191–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61510-6

Harris, J., & Scully, B. (2015). Global Inequality, Rising Powers and the Global South. Third World Quarterly, 36(4), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1024456

Htun, M., & Piscopo, J. (2014). Women and Politics in Latin America. In S. Franceschet, M. Krook, & J. Piscopo (Eds.), The Impact of Gender Quotas. Oxford University Press.

Kapcia, A. (2008). Cuba in Revolution: A History Since the Fifties. Reaktion Books.

Kragh, M. (2016). The Scandinavian Welfare Model: Achievements, Challenges and Lessons. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.7577/njsr.2063

Looney, R. (2021). Costa Rica’s Renewable Energy Pathway. Energy Policy, 149, 112010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112010

Martinez Franzoni, J., & Sánchez-Ancochea, D. (2016). Good Jobs and Social Services: How Costa Rica Achieved the Elusive Double Incorporation. Palgrave Macmillan.

Muntaner, C., & Chung, H. (2012). Health Care and the Welfare State: Lessons from Developed Nations. Annual Review of Public Health, 33, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124658

Olsen, G. M. (2012). Power and Inequality: A Comparative Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Sandbrook, R., Edelman, M., Heller, P., & Teichman, J. (2007). Social Democracy in the Global Periphery: Origins, Challenges, Prospects. Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Knopf.

Solarte-Vasquez, M. C. (2019). Uruguay’s Progressive Reforms: Cannabis, Equality, and Democracy. Latin American Politics and Society, 61(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2019.9

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality. W.W. Norton & Company.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Human Development Report 2022. UNDP. Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org

World Bank. (2016). Vietnam 2035: Toward Prosperity, Creativity, Equity, and Democracy. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0824-1

World Health Organization. (2020). Global Health Observatory Data. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/data/gho