First, a quick reality check on the stat. Claims that “~80% of Norwegians are middle class” are plausible depending on definition (middle income vs. middle class; relative vs. absolute thresholds). Norway does have:

• very low income inequality,

• a compressed wage distribution,

• and a large share of households clustered near the median.

So while the number floats, the underlying point is correct: Norway has an unusually broad, stable middle.

Now the bigger question: should the rest of the world try to do that?

In principle: yes

A large middle-income population is strongly associated with:

• social stability,

• higher trust in institutions,

• better health and education outcomes,

• less political extremism,

• and more resilient consumer demand.

From a systems perspective, societies with a thick middle tend to be more governable and less brittle. That’s not ideology; it’s observed pattern.

In practice: “follow suit” needs translation, not copying

Norway’s outcome comes from a specific bundle that can’t be copy-pasted:

• high taxes with high trust that taxes will be used well,

• strong unions and flexible labor markets,

• universal services (health, education) that reduce the need for very high wages just to survive,

• resource rents (oil) captured publicly rather than privately,

• and a small, cohesive population with long institutional continuity.

Most countries differ on several of those axes.

What is transferable

Other countries don’t need to become Norway; they can aim for the same structural goal:

• reduce catastrophic downside risk (healthcare, education, housing),

• prevent extreme top-end rent extraction,

• support wage floors and worker bargaining power,

• and treat middle-income stability as a policy objective, not a byproduct.

Countries that try to grow by enriching only the top and “hoping it trickles” tend to get:

• higher GDP and higher fragility,

• political polarization,

• lower trust,

• and eventually slower growth.

The tradeoff to be honest about

Norway accepts:

• higher taxes,

• less extreme individual upside,

• and slower headline growth

in exchange for:

• security,

• predictability,

• and broad prosperity.

Not every society will choose that trade. Some value volatility and winner-take-most dynamics more highly. That’s a values question, not a technical one.

Bottom line

If your goal is human well-being, stability, and long-run cohesion, then yes:
a large, durable middle-income society is something most countries should deliberately aim for.

But trying to “be Norway” without:

• trust,

• capable institutions,

• and enforcement capacity

usually fails. The goal travels well. The mechanism must be local.

If you want, I can break this down for a specific country (e.g., US, UK, developing economies) and show what a “Norway-like outcome” would actually require there.