The point of the post is that NZL has 20% below OECD average GDP per capita, when it would be predicted for them to be 20% above.
The key figure is Figure 3 from http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/internat...
In that, you can see NZL at the far bottom right.
On the other hand, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are all above the line, meaning they have higher GDP per capita than predicted. The only nordic country below the line is Denmark, and they are barely below the line.
So, you are saying that the nordic countries are similar, but the very paper this blog post is based on shows they are not at all economically similar.
Oil revenues make such comparisons tricky at best. You would need to consider the hypothetical case of a New Zealand with lots of oil to sell, or a Norway without any.
The nordic countries are known for high taxes, excellent social welfare benefits, free healthcare, free education, low crime, low corruption, high quality of life and so on.
Sure they have some big companies but with a few exceptions they aren't build on innovation nor entrepreneurship. Most large companies in the nordic countries are quite old and the new ones that start there quickly move to the US, England or Asia if they want to scale.
Pretty much sounds like NZ.
Edit: Huh? Why the down vote?