Far too few governments rein in their countries’ bloated welfare states before disaster strikes. As a result, some citizens eventually suffer the economic equivalent of a heart attack: wrenching declines in living standards as they are victimized by unsustainable programs’ endgame. Greece and the city of Detroit are only the most recent grim examples.
Many more suffer from the meager growth and barely rising incomes that result from the toxic combination of government overspending, burdensome regulations and corrosive taxation. Much of Europe fits into this category of economic stagnation.
However, governments occasionally stage successful retreats from welfare-state dysfunction. Canada reduced spending by over 8 percent of GDP in the 1990s, and the US reduced non-military spending by 5 percent of GDP beginning in the mid-1980s — a trend sustained by center-right and center-left governments alike.
So, when a European country reverses course to reduce welfare dependency and restore work incentives, it is worth noting — especially when that country is the Netherlands, which built one of the world’s most expansive welfare states in the 1960s and 1970s.
Recently, Dutch King Willem-Alexander, while delivering his first annual address to the Dutch Parliament, said: “Our labor market and system of public services no longer fully meet the demands of the twenty-first century… The classical welfare state is slowly but surely evolving into a participation society.”
That represents a genuinely remarkable shift.
From the 1960s and 1970s on, those writing about the Netherlands often lamented the “Dutch disease.”
There were so many generous subsidies, grants and transfer payments — aimed at everyone from the truly needy to artists unable to sell their work — that after-tax wages were often barely higher than benefits. People rarely returned to work after they lost or left a job, or did so in the underground economy, with its unreported cash payments.
Whether a person considered the Dutch welfare state humane and generous or bloated and foolhardy, its largesse took a heavy toll on the economy.
However, unlike the French, for example, the Dutch have responded to their past excesses with a series of policies designed to promote a return to work in the formal labor market. Indeed, they deserve an orange-hued salute for innovative reforms that governments worldwide might usefully emulate in the interest of maintaining a targeted, effective and affordable safety net.
For example, disability insurance has become a huge, rapidly growing problem in many countries, despite the dramatic decline in the percentage of workers in physically demanding and dangerous jobs like construction and manufacturing. To stem the dramatic rise in disability payments, the Dutch now require firms with high claim rates to pay more for disability insurance, thereby creating a strong incentive to ensure greater workplace safety.
However, reducing disability claims — and thus payments — is only half of the equation. The other half is returning those who can do so to gainful employment.
In the US, fewer than 1 percent of people who are disabled return to work. Early intervention and informational campaigns about return-to-work options are promising possibilities. Much economic research shows that job skills deteriorate the longer one is away from work, so retraining, information and re-entry programs are very important.
Similarly, the Dutch have embraced welfare reform, much as the US did in 1996, when Democratic former US president Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed on time limits, as well as work and training requirements.
As a result, the Dutch welfare system now requires beneficiaries to show proof of an active job search prior to eligibility, to perform work or volunteer community service while receiving benefits and to take a job even if it requires a long commute.
The US’ 1996 welfare reform grew out of initiatives in the state of Wisconsin. Just as the state’s reform proved to be a model that was successfully adopted nationally, so reforms in one EU country could spur policy innovations elsewhere in the EU and around the world.
Contagious successful policy reforms are precisely what Europe and most of the world need.
To see why, consider the tax rate necessary to pay for social benefits, which equals the replacement rate — the average level of benefits relative to taxpayer incomes — multiplied by the dependency ratio — the share of the population receiving the benefits. The higher the replacement rate and/or dependency ratio, the higher the tax rate needed to pay for the benefits.
What is certain is that the dependency ratio will rise virtually everywhere, owing to inexorable demographic trends. The combination of rising life expectancy, lower fertility rates and, in some countries — including the US — the retirement of the post-World War II baby-boom generation, implies a rapid increase in the old-age dependency ratio.
The US, for example, will go from one retiree for every three workers today to a 1 on 2 ratio in the next three decades. Italy and Germany will have a 1 on 1 ratio. The percentage of China’s population that will be over 65 a generation from now will be larger than in the US.
Common-sense policy reforms that ought to be adopted, like the Dutch disability and welfare reforms, will provide a second dividend by lowering the dependency ratio. That will not be enough to maintain sound public finances indefinitely. However, by demonstrating cures to the “Dutch disease,” the Netherlands is giving all of us an invaluable lesson.
Michael Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was chairman of former US president George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 to 1993.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations