Leaders have no incentive to pursue reform, because voters consistently failed to demand it
Since the global economic crisis began in
2008, Italy’s GDP has declined by about 8%, nearly a million workers have lost
their jobs, and real wages have come under increasing pressure. In southern Italy today, a young person – especially a woman – on a
permanent work contract, being paid on time and in full, is a statistical
oddity. And yet, an uneasy coalition government seems unlikely to address the
concerns that drove voters to reject the entrenched ruling elite in the last
election. The most striking aspect of Italy’s
recent turmoil is what has not happened: citizens have not poured into the
streets demanding reform.
Indeed, throughout the crisis, Italian
society has remained uncharacteristically stable. The
subdued nature of the few public protests that have occurred contrasts sharply
with uprisings in Europe’s other struggling economies – such as Greece, Spain,
Portugal, and Ireland –
not to mention those that have roiled the Arab world in recent years. Even
Sweden faced riots this year, as did the United Kingdom in 2011.
The absence of such outbursts of popular
anger in Italy can be explained partly by the savings cushion
built by previous generations. But there are also deeper social
and political forces at play – forces that threaten to push Italy, like Japan
after its asset-price bubble burst in 1990, toward silent decline.
Japan’s experience – characterized by more
than 20 years of economic stagnation – offers important lessons for
crisis-stricken democratic countries with aging populations. During Japan’s “lost decades,” successive Japanese governments allowed
public debt to skyrocket and refused to confront the economy’s deep-rooted
problems, allowing sclerosis to take hold.
In fact, Japan’s leaders had little incentive to
pursue bold reform, because voters consistently failed to demand it. This quiescence was at least partly
rooted in demographics. Japanese society is one of the world’s oldest, with
roughly 40% of the population older than 54 and a median age of 45.8.
Older citizens’ substantial savings make
them amenable to economic torpor. When
banks cut lending, the velocity of money declines and consumer prices fall,
increasing the purchasing power of pensioners and fixed-rate investors. And
those who are nearing retirement know that they are unlikely to lose their jobs
in an uncompetitive economy. So, while older people do not prefer to live in a
crisis-stricken country, they do not find it intolerable, as
opportunity-starved young people do; they are simply more focused on purchasing
power than on the economy’s animal spirits.
Italy currently has the world’s third
oldest population – 33% are at least 55 years old, and the median age is 44.2. As in
Japan, these older citizens have ample savings. In the Piedmont region, for
example, those with savings of at least €350,000 ($461,000) are 66 years old,
on average. Moreover, 18.6 million of Italy’s 60 million citizens receive
monthly pension benefits (though 11 million receive less than €1,000 per
month), while only 12 million people are on a full-time permanent work
contract.
Italy’s malaise, like Japan’s, has
deepened as its generational disparity has grown. Simply put, whereas citizens
receiving rents benefit from falling prices for goods and services, producers
(and potential producers) do not.
Given this, the two groups advocate very
different policies. For example, payroll-tax cuts – which would enable small
business-owners and entrepreneurs to expand, innovate, and become more
competitive, thereby bolstering job creation and economic growth – might
require reducing rents.
In fact, Italy’s tax system is skewed in favor of
savers. A
12.5% tax is levied on capital gains from government bonds, while entrepreneurs
risking their own capital to launch new businesses must pay roughly 50% of
their start-up costs in taxes. Similarly, Italy’s real-estate tax amounts to
about 2% of total government revenue, compared to the OECD average of 4% – and
the government intends to slash it further. And landlords pay a 15% tax on
rents, while unskilled workers pay a 23% tax on their meager incomes.
But, while rentiers and producers are
increasingly at odds, the former prevail at the ballot box – and not only
because of demographics. According
to the pollster EMG, 60% of Italians aged 18-34 are likely to vote, compared to
72% of those over 55. Pensioners have the highest propensity to vote (73%);
students and the unemployed are among the least likely to turn out for
elections.
It is not surprising that those whose
interests have been best served by politicians are more likely to vote. But
this creates a vicious cycle: as young people and workers become increasingly
alienated from the democratic process, political leaders continue to implement
policies that favor the old, demoralizing producers further.
Recent developments in Japan offer reason
for hope. Growing concerns about China’s rise
encouraged Japanese voters to support Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his bold
reform program. While the results of “Abenomics” remain to be seen, the mandate
to reinvigorate Japan’s long-stagnant economy was clear.
The question now is what kind of shock
would be required to motivate Italians to demand similar action. Adopting
the euro in 1999 clearly was not sufficient, nor has rising competition from
emerging economies spurred Italians to halt their country’s decline. But,
unless they begin demanding that their leaders address the country’s many
economic challenges instead of attempting to wait them out, Italy may well be
doomed to a Japanese-style lost decade – or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment