I don't really find the law of jante very applicable to Scandinavia, at least not uniquely so. Scandinavia is in many ways one of the most individualistic places in the world, in terms of things like social values or religion.
It's seem like most people who mention the law either seem to describe things prevalent in many parts of the world, don't agree with egalitarianism or dislikes the fore mentioned individualism.
I think it's vital to keep in mind the setting of A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks when discussing it. The law is presented both as a result of, and a way of maintaining the large class divide in 1930s small towns like Jante: Calvinist work ethic and a lack of upward mobility festering into resentment for other working-class people.
This is why I'm a little skeptical of attempts to invoke it for modern Scandinavia (especially since it's become somewhat of a rhetorical bludgeon used in favor of tax cuts)
Yeah I think it is hard to explain scandinavia to people as it is both extremely indiviualistic and group oriented. The collectivism in Scandinavia is not quite like in asia, although there is some overlapping. My own experience with asian culture is that it is far more paternalistic and top down. Scandinavians tend to be extremely anti-elite and anti-hierarchy while at the same time placing a large trust in government.
I don't deny there is a certain consensus driven culture with a general fear of conflict. But I don't agree that Scandinavia in particular has, as people tend to argue, a dislike for successful people nor necessarily of people being different, as long as there is also substance. Especially with there being so many well liked successful Scandinavians. It seems to me like people most often mean:
A) That the grass is greener somewhere else. Which can be true in many cases, but is usually more down to individual circumstances.
B) That they like more appreciation for their social status. As in more egalitarian societies few things are by themselves impressive.
C) Or that they actually want more collectivism and people to be invested in their success, in contrast to the sometimes cold Scandinavian individualism.
In term more destructive collectivism I think the US/UK (who loves to hate celebrities), central Europe (where everyone have only themselves to blame) and Asia (with a lot of social pressure) is worse.
It's seem like most people who mention the law either seem to describe things prevalent in many parts of the world, don't agree with egalitarianism or dislikes the fore mentioned individualism.