Like many other European systems, Norway has much to gain in bringing in more emphasis on individual responsibility and free markets in the traditional Social Democratic system
Largely uncommented on in the US press, Europe’s long-standing social
democratic tilt has changed. During recent years, almost all Western European
nations have seen a dramatic fall in support for the traditional Social
Democratic parties, which for so long have dominated the political landscapes.
In response, the centre-left parties have morphed, moving towards greater
emphasis on the benefits of free markets and individual responsibility. In
several countries the former communist parties now claim that they fill the
role of traditional Social Democrats. A new breed of modernized centre-left
parties is likely to replace several centre‑right governments during coming
years. The third consecutive loss for the German Social Democrats illustrates
the continuing difficulties for Europe’s labor movements to gather the strong
support that they previously almost took for granted.
Until
recently oil-rich Norway has remained unique, as the only nation where Social
Democrats have resisted change to highly generous welfare benefits. In 1999 the
former Swedish social democratic minister of business, Björn Rosengren,
famously called Norway “the last Soviet state” due to the lack of willingness
to adopt market policies. But now even Norway is shifting with the recent
election of a centre‑right government formed by Erna Solberg. Making the
transition from a full-scale welfare state to a system which consistently
rewards work more than public handouts will be a difficult one for Norway.
Hopefully, the newly elected government will draw inspiration from the neighbor
to the east.
Politicians in Norway for long admired the Swedish social system, seeing
their larger neighbor as a pioneer of Social Democratic policies.
Recently however, particularly the left has begun to emphasize the
uniqueness of the Norwegian Welfare Model rather than the Scandinavian Welfare
Model. Swedish policies have even been used in the recent election as
deterrence by the left. It is easy to see why. The current centre-right
government in Sweden, elected in 2006 and re‑elected in 2010, has focused on a
broad reform agenda. The workfare policies introduced include: somewhat less
generous benefits, tax reductions aimed particularly at those with lower
incomes, liberalizations of the temporary employment contracts and a
gate-keeping mechanism for receiving sick and disability benefits.
The policies
have successfully addressed the problem of overutilization of welfare benefits.
The number of those on sick leave in Sweden has fallen from around 212,000
individuals in 2005 to 136,000 in 2012. At the same time, the number of
individuals on early retirement has fallen from 557,000 to 378,000. If we look
at the total share supported by various government benefits, we can see that
this figure has been reduced from 25
to 16 percent of the working age population between 2005 and 2012 (adjusted to
full‑time equivalents). Not a bad feat given that the period has been shaped by
the global economic downturn.
Until
recently, Norway has continued on the path of very generous public handouts.
Contrary to Sweden, overutilization of welfare systems has thus continued in
Norway. Erna Solberg utilized this fact to criticize the Social Democratic
policies during the recent election campaign. Solberg noted that the working
age population which depends on welfare benefits has increased slightly from
31.2 percent in the beginning of 2006 to 31.7 percent in the beginning of 2013.
After adjusting the figures to full‑time equivalents, and thus making them more
comparable to the Swedish data given above, the Norwegian magazine Aftenposten calculates that
the share has been stable around 20 percent of the population since 2005.
By relying
on workfare policies, Sweden has thus gone from having considerably more to
quite less dependency on public handouts. It should be noted that both
countries are very healthy. The high share on sick benefits, disability
benefits and early retirement is not a sign of bad health. Rather, it is a
combination of overutilization of welfare systems by segments of the population
at one hand, and of the willingness of politicians to hide the true
unemployment by classifying individuals as outside the labor force on the other
hand.
The
difference between the more work-fare oriented Sweden and the more welfare
oriented Norway are also seen in the number of hours worked. Swedes on average
spend 14 percent more hours working than
their neighbors to the west. (In fact, as my brother has shown, in terms of
hours worked per working age adult, Sweden has recently even outpaced the US). Particularly young Norwegians are
considered to have a notoriously weak working ethic, while Swedish workers are
highly praised in Norway. Interestingly, since Norway has such significant oil
resources, the countries welfare state is supported by lower taxes than Sweden.
Clearly, overly generous welfare systems will create welfare dependency even
when combined with more moderate tax levels.
Norway
remains, in many regards, one of the most affluent nations in the world thanks
to its oil‑wealth. But whilst Sweden and Denmark have introduced significant
market reforms during recent decades (Denmark recently even ranked
slightly above the US in the Heritage/WSJ index of
economic freedom), Norway has resisted change. It is of course an exaggeration
to call Norway “the last Soviet state”, although this notion remains popular in
Sweden.
A more
nuanced perspective is that although Norway has yet to introduce market
liberalizations which promote competition, reduce state involvement in the
economy and promote workfare policies, it seems headed in this direction.
Norwegians can continue to afford an overly generous welfare system. But they
have good reasons to be concerned over the social and economic consequences
that follow long‑term welfare dependency and deterioration of the work ethic.
Like many other European systems, Norway has much to gain in bringing in more
emphasis on individual responsibility and free markets in the traditional
Social Democratic system.
No comments:
Post a Comment