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
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath