The Index of Economic Freedom is based on ideological arguments, not material analysis. Norway's government revenue makes up about 60% of its GDP [1], in part due to its share in oil, gas and fishing - this is in the top ten in the world. Venezuela actually has the lowest share of government revenue in the world, at about 5% of GDP [1], the black markets caused by hyperinflation probably playing a part here.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governm...

A better measure than revenue would be public ownership of property, but this produces some surprising results. I am not sure whether the fact that Singapore is the second most socialist country on the planet would likely be more distressing to the left or the right.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/09/how-capitali...

Someone else has already posted a good source for it. But I just wanted to add here that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank particularly known for pushing "free-market economics" (read as: neoliberal policies of hyper-privatisation) so obviously it's on their best interest to label countries such as the nordic ones more capitalist than socialist.

And I mean, yeah, nordic countries for sure participate in the free-market... but Capitalism is defined by private ownership; so when you have such important portions of your economy be collectively, socially or communally owned (state, coops, labour unions) it's misleading to use such labels so lightly. These are mixed-economies, and I would even go as far as to say they're more socialist than capitalist.

Socialism does have a bad reputation though. So I don't blame for these countries to label themselves as "capitalist"; i mean, it's better for business.

It wouldn't be a contradiction to live in a country where most productive enterprises were owned by the state, but where individuals still had great economic freedom.

There is a big difference between governments owning things vs. exclusions to citizens owning things.