Taxation, Globalization and the Welfare State. Sven Steinmo University of Colorado

Transcription

1 Taxation, Globalization and the Welfare State Sven Steinmo University of Colorado

2 Former Social Democratic Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt The welfare state is such a good idea (but given globalization) there will be a need to reduce the burden of social services, reduce taxation and find new ways to be competitive in the global economy. Source: Yergin and Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights, 2001

3 Race to the Bottom? Taxation as a percent GDP Conti nued T ax gr owth OECD Aver age Eur opean Aver ge

4 Average Growth and Tax Burdens in the OECD IRE Growth = -0.04Avg. Tax Burden R 2 = Average GDP Growth LUX FIN AUS US ICE SPN PRT CAN NLD NOR GRC SWE UK NZ DEN BEL AUT FR ITA DEU JPN SWZ Average Tax Burden Source: OECD, Revenue Statistics of Member Countries. Available online:

5

6 Cutting Taxes at the Top: Personal Income Tax Rates, Country reduction Australia Austria Canada Finland France Germany 56 53* -3 Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands * -12 New Zealand Norway Sweden United Kingdom United States Unweighted Average

7 Sweden: High Taxes and High Tax Burdens and Growth Rates: Growth? SWEDEN Tax % GDP GROWTH RATES (increase over previous year as % GDP) GERMANY JAPAN U.S.A Source: OECD Economic Outlook, 2002, No.72

8 Why no Race to the Bottom? The welfare state is an insurance system (fiscal churning). All insurance is redistributive and can be economically efficient. Taxation finances public spending on infrastructure, education etc. which can be social investment. Capital flows where it will make a profit, not to where its costs are lowest. Individual mobility is in fact very limited (corporate relocation of an executive averages 1/3 million dollars today). Taxes are a small part of costs. Voters oppose cuts in public spending.

9 Lesson From the Swedish Case Knut Rexed, (special advisor to the Prime Minister): There will be increased competition between countries due to internationalization. But it won t be the country with the lowest tax rates that wins. It will be the countries which have the most efficient use of resources that wins.

10 Looking into the future of advanced Welfare States Why No Convergence? 1. Demography 2. Political Commitment 3. Public Trust

11 Demography

12

13 Net Migration 1998 (Percent of Total Population) Germany Japan US Sweden Source: Trends in International Migration 2000, 2000 World Development Indicators and Statistical Yearbook of the INS 2000 Note: Data for US net migration based on emigration estimates of the UN and Euoropean Commision - see Appendix 2

14 Percentage Voters By Age USA, 2002 Percentage of Voters by Age

15 Policy Patterns and Political Commitment Political Choices t 1 Political Challenges t 2

16 1997 Social Welfare Expenditures (% of GDP) Japan US Germany Sweden Source: OECD Social Expenditures Database - Common Programmes - Public and M andatory Private Programmes (2001) Available online:

17 Government as Employer Government Employment Percent of Total Employment Germany Japan Sw eden US OECD Avg Sour ce: Assembled f r om OECD St at ist icalcompen dium 1st ed Not e: OECD Aver age Con st r uct ed f r om High- I n come OECD st at es excludin g Lux.

18 Private Social Benefits Expenditures (% of Total Social Benefits Expenditures) Germany Sweden United States Source: " The Growing Role of Privat e Benefit s" OECD Working Papers Vol 6 no 51

19 Explaining the Reagan Democrats The Effect of Redistribution on 1/2 Median Income Families of Four (1995 US Dollars and PPPs) Source: Compiled from Luxembourg Income Study Note: For a full discussion of methods and definitions see Appendix 3 Germany 1994 Sweden 1995 US 1997 Market Earnings Earnings After Redistribution

20 Political Trust?

21 Attitudes towards public spending in Sweden, Taxes go to different purposes. Do you think that the amount of tax money that goes to the purposes named below should be increased, held the same, or reduced? Percent who would increase expenditures (+) Percent who would reduce expenditures (-) Health care (+) 52.7 (-) 4.4 Support for the elderly Housing support Social help (welfare) Research and higher education Public schools Employment policy measures State and local government administration (+) 60.3 (-) 1.7 (+) 31.8 (-) 14.5 (+) 13.2 (-) 26.3 (+) 37.6 (-) 7.3 (+) 37.6 (-) 7.3 (+) 61.7 (-) 7.0 (+) 2.5 (-) 71.0 (+)76.9 (-) 2.1 (+) 69.5 (-) 1.7 (+) 41.0 (-) 11.0 (+) 20.9 (-) 20.9 (+) 34.4 (-) 7.5 (+) 70.4 (-) 1.0 (+) 46.7 (-) 19.5 (+) 2.8 (-) 68.0 (number of respondents) Source: Svallfors, S. (1999). Mellan risk och tilltro: Opinionsstödet för kollektiv välfärdspolitik (Between risk and confidence: Opinion support for collective welfare policy. Umeå, Sweden, Umeå University, page 16.

22 Political Trust Japan USA Germany Trust in politics* Interest in politics *Respondents answering the people rather than big interests run politics. Source: Susan Pharr, in Pharr and Putnam. Disaffected Democracies, (2000), p. 175