The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
>From the desk of _Martin De Vlieghere_ 
(http://www.brusselsjournal.com/martindevlieghere)  on Fri, 2005-11-25  19:27
 
This article was written by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul  Vreymans and Willy De 
Wit of the Flemish think tank _Work for All_ 
(http://www.workforall.org/html/faq_en.html) . 
“America’s social model is flawed, but so is France’s,” the  Parisian 
newspaper Le Monde _recently wrote_ 
(http://www.watchingamerica.com/lemonde000056.html) . According to Le  Monde 
_Europe should adopt_ 
(http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2005/11/26/21135/437)  the  “Scandinavian 
model,” which is said to 
combine the economic efficiency of the  Anglo-Saxon social model with the 
welfare 
state benefits of the continental  European ones. On the eve of the EU’s 
Hampton Court Summit (October 27), one  could even _read that_ 
(http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-146338-16&type=News)   “Britain 
might be forced to 
discuss the advantages of Scandinavian models, which  rely on more social 
security.” 
The praise for the Nordic model comes from _Bruegel_ 
(http://www.bruegel.org/index.php?pid=1) , a new Brussels-based think tank, 
“whose  aim is to 
contribute to the quality of economic policymaking in Europe.” The  think tank 
is a 
_Franco-German government  initiative_ 
(http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-134327-16&type=News)  and is 
heavily funded by EU governments and  
corporations. In October Bruegel published a study “Globalisation and  the 
Reform 
of European Social Models” [_pdf_ (http://www.bruegel.org/_doc_pdf_119) ] 
propagating the Nordic model. 
A paper [_pdf_ (http://www.feb.ugent.be/fac/research/WP/Papers/wp_04_275.pdf) 
] from the  economics department of Ghent University does the same. This 
paper, Fiscal  Policy Employment and Growth: Why is the Euro Area Lagging 
Behind, 
was also  subsidized by the government. In the selection of data comparing the 
performance  of EU economies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated Ireland, 
Spain and Portugal  (three of the four best performing EU economies) from their 
research and added  oil-producing non-EU member Norway (which has a GDP more 
than 20% of which is  based on income from oil). It is hardly imaginable that 
professors of one of  Belgium’s major universities would not be aware of how 
this arbitrary selection  must distort the results. Hence one must read their 
text as an ideological  pamphlet rather than a scientific study.  
However, despite Bruegel, distorted academic studies  and the European media’
s praise, the efficiency of the major Scandinavian  economies is a myth. The 
Swedish and Finnish welfare states have been going  through a long period of 
decline. In the early 1990s they were virtually  bankrupt. Between 1990 and 
1995 
unemployment increased five-fold. The  Scandinavian countries have not been 
able to recover. 
The implosion of the welfare state 
In 1970, Sweden’s level of prosperity was one quarter above  Belgium’s. By 
2003 Sweden had fallen to 14th place from 5th in the prosperity  index, two 
places behind Belgium. According to OECD figures, Denmark was the 3rd  most 
prosperous economy in the world in 1970, immediately behind Switzerland and  
the 
United States. In 2003, Denmark was 7th. Finland did badly as well. From  1989 
to 2003, while Ireland rose from 21st to 4th place, Finland fell from 9th  to 
15th place. 
 
 
Together with Italy, these three Scandinavian countries  are the worst 
performing economies in the entire European Union. Rather than  taking them as 
an 
example, Europe’s politicians should shun the Scandinavian  recipes. 
Jobs 
While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium’s was able to  create 8% 
new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to  create any 
jobs at all in over two decades. Denmark did a little better because  it “
activated” its labour market by making it more “flexible.” It became easier  
for 
employers to fire people. For workers in the construction industry  the  term 
of 
notice was reduced to five days. Unemployment benefits were restricted  in 
time, while those who had been unemployed for a long time, and young people  
could lose benefits if they refuse to accept jobs, including low-productivity  
jobs below their level of training or education. The result is that 
productivity 
 growth in Denmark is lower than in Sweden and Finland. 
 
These draconian measures reduced the unemployment rate, but did  not 
eliminate the cause of unemployment, namely the total lack of motivation on  
the part 
of employees and employers resulting from the extremely high taxation  level. 
Despite the painful measures, the growth of Danish productivity and  
prosperity has been substandard. Disappointment in Danish politicians is one of 
 the 
reasons for the rise of the far right. 
Weak government, bad government  
Why are the Scandinavian countries doing such a bad job, despite  their 
Protestant work ethic and devotion to duty? The main cause is the essence  of 
the 
nanny state: its very high tax level. Between 1990 and 2005 the average  
overall tax burden was 55% in Finland, 58% in Denmark and 61% in Sweden. This 
is  
almost one and a half times the OECD average. 
 
In his research into the causes of growth differences between  OECD economies 
the American economist _James Gwartney_ 
(http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~jgwartne/)  showed that there was a direct  
correlation between economic growth and 
tax burden. The higher the level of  taxation, the lower the growth rate. The 
explanation for this phenomenon is as  logical as it is simple. The higher the 
tax level, the lower the incentive for  people to make a productive 
contribution to society. The higher the fiscal  burden, the more resources flow 
from the 
productive sector to the ever more  inefficient government apparatus. 
Ireland: the efficient alternative 
Ireland has proved that a substantial lowering of the taxation  level can 
become the motor for launching even the most slackish economy into  full gear. 
A 
drastic reduction of the Irish tax rate, from 53% in 1986 to its  current 35% 
, has led to a continuous boom of wealth creation at an average rate  of 5.6% 
during the past two decades, while the number of jobs has grown by over  50%. 
In barely 18 years Ireland jumped from the 22nd to the 4th place in the  OECD 
prosperity ranking. Ireland did not reduce its social welfare benefits. On  
the contrary. The unprecedented growth led to an increase of fiscal revenue and 
 
social expenditure. It was sufficient to improve the productivity of the  
government. 
 
One crucial element of the Irish model is its “fair tax” system,  in which 
there is less emphasis on taxing labour and profit and slightly more on  taxing 
consumption. This balance between direct and indirect taxation motivates  
labourers and entrepreneurs to make productive contributions. It stimulates new 
 
initiatives and guarantees a high degree of participation. 
Such a fiscal system does not put the entire burden of financing  social 
security on domestic production. Indeed, a consumption tax ensures that  
foreign 
production also contributes evenly. 
 
The Irish model combines the so-called “active welfare state” of  
continental Europe with the Anglo-Saxon liberal economy in a balanced fashion.  
The 
model is efficient. Ireland surpasses all other EU members in prosperity,  job 
creation, social expenditure and productivity per working hour. 
Investing in the future 
The difference between the wealth destructive Scandinavian model  and the 
booming Irish alternative is obvious for all to see. Strangely enough,  
however, 
the French and German governments do not seem to notice. Those in  Belgium do 
not, either. The Belgian government recently proposed a new policy  plan 
inspired by the Danish model. The tax level is not reduced, the fiscal  burden 
is 
not being shifted from production to consumption, but instead from one  
production factor (labour) to another (capital) which is already  overburdened. 
 
Saving is discouraged, too. After deducting inflation and the  witholding 
tax, which under the European _savings taxation  directive_ 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/taxation/personal_tax/savings_tax/index_en.htm)
  will 
soon amount to 35%, the real net interest  rate will be –2%. This means that 
every person in his thirties who is saving  1.00 euro today, will only have the 
equivalent of 0.54 euro when he turns 60. In  barely six years the Belgian 
savings rate has already dropped by more than a  quarter: from 12.4% in 1998 to 
9.1% in 2004. The savings rate will drop even  further, thereby drying up all 
reserves for investment. Like work, saving and  investing, too, must be 
profitable if people are to engage in these  activities. 
Excessive taxation 
2004 witnessed a record world economic growth of 5%. China and  India are 
booming, the US and Japan are recovering. Gwartney’s findings explain  why 
continental West European countries, such as Belgium, did not see their  
economies 
grow. The Belgian tax burden is 9% higher than the OECD average and  15% higher 
than the tax level in the US and Japan. If continental Western Europe  does 
not change its policies, its relative impoverishment today will soon turn  into 
absolute pauperization. 
 
Its tax structure is not adapted to the challenges of  globalization. Taxes 
on production are the opposite of import taxes. They double  Europe’s 
production costs and, in doing so, halve its productivity. Like  protectionism 
they 
lead to distortions in world trade, but they do so in the  opposite direction. 
Ever more rapidly, continental Western Europe is losing its  semi 
labour-intensive sectors to countries where productivity is even lower than  in 
Western 
Europe. This move from high productivity to low productivity  countries is a 
waste. It is not only a catastrophe for Western Europe’s  employment. It is 
also 
bad for the world at large because the highly productive  production apparatus 
and infrastructure of Western Europe is not used to its  full capacity. This 
leads to less than optimal global labour division and wealth  creation. 
Politicians must realize that economic growth is not brought  about by 
fiscally punishing productive citizens, nor by collective  impoverishment and 
social 
welfare cuts, but by cutting taxes and bureaucracy.  Ireland has shown that 
it can be done and how to do it. 
 
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/trackback/510




 
____________________________________
 YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

 
____________________________________






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/U6CDDD/izNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to