Currently, the average number of hours worked per person aged 15 to 25 each year in France and Germany is about 50 percent lower than in the US. Other European countries (for example, Italy and Spain) fall somewhere between these poles. Although some Americans boast about their superior work ethic, this disparity in working hours between the US and Europe has not always existed. Indeed, until the mid-1970s, the number of hours worked on either side of the Atlantic was roughly the same.
From the mid-1970s on, however, Americans continued working more or less the same number of hours, while Western Europeans began working less and less each year. If Western Europe needs an explanation as to why its rate of economic growth is lagging behind the US, it need look no further.
The average number of working hours per person depends on a variety of factors: the level of participation in the labor force; the number of vacation days workers have; the number of hours worked in a "normal" week, ie, with no vacation.
Virtually all the difference between the US on one side and France and Germany on the other are due to the first two factors, each with roughly equal weight. So, lower participation in the labor force explains half of the difference, and longer vacations for those who do work accounts for the other half. The importance of vacation time should come as no surprise to anyone who has experienced Europe's deserted cities in August, the three-week vacation "bridges" in April and May in France and Italy, the "rush hours" that take place every Friday at 2pm in German cities, and crowded ski slopes in February due to winter school vacations.
But knowing "how" Europeans work less is one thing; knowing "why" Europeans work less than Americans is another. One view is that Americans are perceived (and like to see themselves) as Calvinist workaholics, whereas Europeans like to think that they know how to enjoy life's pleasures. As a European working in the US, I admit that I do take many more vacations than my American colleagues. So there may be something in this "cultural" explanation. But why did this start around 1973?
A second argument attributes the difference to income taxes, which, in fact, have increased significantly in Europe since the 1970s, while in the US income taxes fell from the early 1980s onward. Income taxes certainly must affect willingness to work.
They may not change by much the number of hours worked by the main breadwinner in a family (typically a man), but they do influence the participation of women in the labor force. After all, why work, when your after-tax salary barely pays for childcare and household help?
But even this is not a sufficient explanation, because studies of how the supply of labor responds to tax changes suggest that something else must explain the enormous gap between US and Europe, especially France and Germany.
For the age group over 50, the structure of pension systems is clearly a major factor. It was and remains much more profitable to retire earlier in Europe than in the US. Why should a Frenchman or Italian in his early sixties work today, when in the 1990s he could have retired in his mid-fifties with 80 percent or more of his last working-age salary? For women, the retirement age in the mid-1990s was even lower. Public sector employees had even more advantages.
Nor is that all. In the 1980s and 1990s, many European labor unions, in response to rising unemployment, adopted the policy of "work less, work all." In other words, they obtained shorter hours (ie, more vacations) in order to keep employment up. The problem is that total compensation did not go down in proportion to the shorter hours, thus leading to an increase in pay per hour. Lower productivity and higher unit labor costs eroded firms' willingness to hire, leaving Europe with chronically higher unemployment than in the US.
Today's debates about growth in Europe are full of buzz words like "knowledge-based society," "technological progress," and "investment in education." Europeans certainly need something to compensate for a short working life with many vacations.
But much of this discussion is merely a form of "political correctness." It is more reassuring -- and "feels better" -- to tell Europeans that growth is sluggish because society is not sufficiently knowledge-based, rather than pointing to the trade-off between vacations and growth.
Europeans tend to prefer vacations over growth. Personally, I love taking more and more vacations. But I cannot (and do not) then complain if my income does not grow faster and faster.
Alberto Alesina is professor of economics at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with