1
Inequalities in new capitalism - how do they affect European
integration?Zsuzsa Ferge
Plenary session
8th ESPAnet annual conference 2010
Budapest, 2-4 September 2010
2
Awareness about inequalities on the rise
• New signs in macroeconomy (E.g. the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report)
• Importance of the issue visible at the present ESPAnet conference: – Presentations here have dealt emphatically with
increasing global, national, local inequalities.
• There are many clustering possibilities. I am particularly concerned with the „East-West” divide (stream 14)– and how it affects European integration.
3
Two topics of this presentation
1. The increase of inequalities and their possibly new features in the EU
2. The East-West divide – formal convergence and substantive divergence?
4
Ad 1. The increase of inequalities and their possibly new features in the EU
Fitoussi and Laurent wrote in 2009:• “In the early 1990s, a theoretical and empirical case was
made in favour of “structural reforms” promoting labour market flexibility and welfare state downsizing as the way out of massive unemployment for European countries. Virtually all of them, as well as EU institutions, embraced this new economic and social strategy”.
•The new strategy contributed to an increase in economic vulnerability and to an increase in inequalities.
5
The „structural refoms” have weakened for decades the automatic stabilizers such as the progressivity of the tax system, the size of the public sector, wages and labour market protection (particularly unemployment benefits).
The weakening of automatic stabilisers undermined the capacity of the economic system to respond efficiently to shocks. This aggravated the impact of the present crisis on European economies.
The automatic stabilizers have all contributed to the containment of inequalities. Their slashing obviously promoted the increase of inequalities.
6
Most automatic (economic) stabilizers are, in a social policy approach, instruments of social policy.
I find important the insight of economists because it strengthens our argument for a strong and active welfare state. A strong social policy is needed not only for “humanitarian” or value purposes, but also for the sake of a resilient economy.
7
New (or more pronounced) traits of inequality
• The new traits of inequality include unlimited competition between the fields of forces: no more „live and let live” principle.
• Deepening splits between the parts of society (e.g. increasing life expectancy in the upper strata, decreasing life expectancy lower down.)
• The absence of any ceiling (E.g. A. Sinfield’s paper on earnings of bankers.)
• Most importantly, the absence of a floor to offer at least minimal protection to those who are losing ground.
8
Anything particular about inequalities in the Eastern block?
These traits of increasing inequalities exist in most European countries.
In the East, though, (with a few exceptions) - changes happened more rapidly and unexpectedly (privatisation,
mass unemployment); - the market missed for long exercised a fatal attraction. Moral
considerations were altogether absent from fields connected with inequality and poverty;
- civil society has been very weak and inarticulate: - there seemed to be no alternative on offer, - therefore even the idea of resistance was lacking,
- trimming of state intervention (also EU request) came too early, before the creation of many „civilised conditions” (infrastructure, etc.) This East-West civilisation gap impossible to overcome individually.
9
Long-term unemployment rate and unemployment benefits in % of GDP, 2007.
8,3
4,7
4,1 4,13,8 3,8 3,8
3,4 3,4 3,22,9 2,8 2,7
2,3 2,21,7 1,6 1,6 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,2
0,8 0,7 0,60,6
1,51,1
0,3
3,3
1,2
0,4
1,8
0,80,3 0,5 0,6 0,5
0,10,5
2,41,9
0,3
1,4
0,3
1,2
0,5
1,40,9 1,1 0,9
1,6
0
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
SK DE EL BG BE PT PL FR HU RO IT CZ MT EE SI ES FI LV IE LT NL UK AT LU SE CY DK
Long term unemployment rate, 2007 Unemployment benefits, percentage of GDP, 2007
-Unemployment benefit in red: under 1 % of GDP, disproportionately low as compared to long-term unemployment rate.
-Western block: IT, MT,
-Eastern block: SK, BG, PL, HU, RO, CZ, EE, SI, LV. LT (all countries in the block)
Illustration of lack of floor
Example: The long-term unemployed are particularly (if differently) vulnerable in the eastern countries – low and missing benefits
10
Can not afford meat every 2nd day
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 811 12 12 13
19 20 2123
2629 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
LU DK NL ES SE IE FI PT UK BE CY EE FR GR IT DE SI CZ AT LT RO PL LV HU SK BG
No indoor flushing toilet for sole use
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 57 7
14
1821
38
43
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
SE DK ES IT UK LU CY BE FR IE NL SI DE AT CZ GR PT SK FI HU PL EE LV LT BG RO
A. Individual deep poverty: practically ended in the West, medium problem in the East
B. Individual poverty and public „civilisation gap” (lack of roads, sewage, water conduit) – solved in the West, huge problem in some Eastern counntries.
Individually impossible to overcome
Illustration of the infrastructural gap: individual need that cannot be satisfied without public intervention
Red: Eastern member states
11
If floor is missing, poverty is deepening, solidarity may be weakening
Increasing deep poverty turns the „deserving majority” against the poor – entailing anti-poor measures
The victims of deep poverty are in many CEE countries in increasing number the Roma. About one third of the poor, half of the very poor are Roma (in Hungary).
The number is high enough to give an ethnic coloration to the veneer that coats poverty.
A growing portion of society views poverty as a "Gypsy question” and requests the cruelly harsh treatment of the poor.
12
Ad 2. How did the enlargement affect the East-West welfare gap?
• The enlargement intended to create a less unequal and hence stronger Union. This implied the closing of the welfare gap.
• The early intentions seem to have failed in many respects. Some traits have converged (particularly those connected with fiscal discipline), others are diverging.
13
Some illustrations of the trends following 2004:
(i) In case of components of deep poverty the difference between the two blocks has become more marked.
(Note: Poverty statistics must be completed: incongruous universal ownership of modern appliances masks country differences (everybody has a TV).
(ii) Individual poverty is aggravated when combined with inadequate public infrastructure that had to be publicly financed
(iii) Despite the need for state activity in closing the welfare gap, the role of the state is weakening faster in the East than in the West
14
Change of poverty rates in 2 years:
-Some convergence in the West
- Increasing inequalities between Eastern countries
- Shift of some Eastern countries towards the wrong end of the scale
Ad i) increasing distance in poverty rates
Poverty rates (Laeken 60) 2005
10 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 1415
1618 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21
10
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
Poverty rate (Laeken 60), 2007
911 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 16 17
19 19 19 20 20 20 2021
2326
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Red: Eastern member states
15
Ad i) increasing distance in life expectancy:
Life expectancy at birth,male, 2004
78 78 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 76 76 76 76 75 75 75 74 7371 70
69 6866 66 66
55
60
65
70
75
80
Sweden Ita
ly
Malt
a
Spain
Nethe
rl UK
Fran
ce
Cypru
s
Greec
e
Germ
any
Irelan
d
Austri
a
Luxe
mb
Belgium
Denm
ark
Finla
nd
Portu
gal
Sloven
ia
Czech
Rep
Poland
Slovak
ia
Hunga
ry
Roman
ia
Estonia
Lithu
aniaLa
tvia
Life expectancy at birth, male, 2007
79 79 78 78 78 78 78 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 76 76 76 75 7471 71 70 69
6766 65
55
60
65
70
75
80
Significant and increasing gap between West and East
West: slight convergence
East: increasing between-country divergence
Red: Eastern member states
16
EU 27 average
Highest rate of lack
2nd highest rate of lack
3rd highest rate of lack
Colour TV 0,5 Bulgaria:
4
Romania:
3
Lithuania:
1
Telephone 1,2 Romania:
13
Bulgaria:
5
Portugaliia
5
Washing machine 1,8 Romania:
20
Bulgaria:
15
Lithuania:
5
(Meat every second day)
9,2 Bulgaria:
30
Slovakia:
29
Hungary:
26
Ad i-Note) Importance of new approaches because of incongruous poverty: fuller satisfaction of „non-basic” than
of more basic needs:% of households that cannot afford:
Note: TV is more wide-spread than electricity, washing machines more than electricity and running water
17
Ad iii) Does public expenditure help to lessen the between-country welfare gap within the EU?
Probably not. Social protection benefits are not converging (even if we disregard their per capita value)
• The rate of social expenditures increased between 2000 and 2007
-in 11 out of 17 W countries;- in 1 out of 10 E countries
• There was between-country convergence between W countries, increasing variance between, and shift towards the lower rates of social protection of, E countries.
18
In the last decade:-Convergence in the western block,
- Shift of E countries towards the wrong (low) end
Social protection benefits in % of GDP, 2000
2530 28 28 28 28
26 25 25 24 24 24 2320 19 19 19 19 19 19
17 15 15 15 14 13 13
05
101520253035
Social protection benefits in % of GDP, 2007
2529 29 28 28 27 27 27 26 25 25 24 23 22 21 21 19 18 18 18 18 18
15 15 14 13 12 11
05
101520253035
Red: Eastren Member States
19
Conclusion
• Increasing inequalities within countries may generate new conflicts not only „at home”, but within the EU (Roma flight and its consequences).
• The rejection of the poor seems to be a spreading trend – strengthening social exclusion.
• Socially two-speed EU: Increasing inequalities between country blocks may undermine the EU’s main objectives (world role, social and economic development, integrated Europe).