The welfare state in the US and Europe: why so different?

Similar documents
PRODUCER ANNUITY SUITABILITY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY STATE As of September 11, 2017

2016 Workers compensation premium index rates

Figure 1.1 Inequality, Economic Growth, Employment Growth, and Real Income Growth in Sweden, Germany, and the United States, 1980s and 1990s

Older consumers and student loan debt by state

The Acquisition of Regions Insurance Group. April 6, 2018

TCJA and the States Responding to SALT Limits

Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts Prepared By: Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Services Division State of Arkansas

Property Tax Relief in New England

Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State by State Analysis

Who s Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap? BY NICOLE WOO, JANELLE JONES, AND JOHN SCHMITT*

Unemployment Insurance Benefit Adequacy: How many? How much? How Long?

DOWNLOAD OR READ : DEVELOPMENT OF THE INCOME SMOOTHING LITERATURE VOL 4 A FOCUS ON THE UNITED STATES PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI

Oregon: Where Taxes Are Low, Fees Are High and Revenue Is Slightly Below Average

Federal Tax Reform NCSL Executive Committee Task Force on State and Local Taxation Jackson, Wyoming June 16, 2017

Taxing Food for Home Consumption

Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19th

ehealth, Inc Fall Cost Report for Individual and Family Policyholders

Report to Congressional Defense Committees

SCHIP: Let the Discussions Begin

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company Term Portfolio

Florida 1/1/2016 Workers Compensation Rate Filing

State Treatment of Social Security Treatment of Pension Income Other Income Tax Breaks Property Tax Breaks

Local Anesthesia Administration by Dental Hygienists State Chart

SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS JANUARY 2008

Yolanda K. Kodrzycki New England Public Policy Center Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

State Trust Fund Solvency

The Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Eye on the South Carolina Housing Market presented at 2008 HBA of South Carolina State Convention August 1, 2008

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University

2018 ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONS

Tax Breaks for Elderly Taxpayers in the States in 2016

Medicare Alert: Temporary Member Access

Tax Freedom Day 2019 is April 16th

The Entry, Performance, and Viability of De Novo Banks

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center

2018 National Electric Rate Study

Texas Economic Outlook: Cruising in Third Gear

Taxing Investment Income in the States New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute 2 nd Annual Budget and Policy Conference Concord, NH January 23, 2015

Charles Gullickson (Penn Treaty/ANIC Task Force Chair), Richard Klipstein (NOLHGA)

NOTICE OF FEDERAL AND STATE TAX INFORMATION FOR PSA PLAN PAYMENTS YOUR ROLLOVER OPTIONS

Fiduciary Tax Returns

Obamacare in Pictures

The State Tax Implications of Federal Tax Reform Legislation

Federal Tax Reform Impact on 2019 Legislative Sessions: GILTI

Alternative Paths to Medicaid Expansion

The State of Children s Health

Age of Insured Discount

Percent of Employees Waiving Coverage 27.0% 30.6% 29.1% 23.4% 24.9%

Please print using blue or black ink. Please keep a copy for your records and send completed form to the following address.

< Executive Summary > Ready Mixed Concrete Industry Data Report Edition

State of the Automotive Finance Market

RLI TRANSPORTATION A Division of RLI Insurance Company 2970 Clairmont Road, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA Phone: Fax:

2017 Supplemental Tax Information

Comments and Thoughts on Senate Tax Legislation Senate Hearing March 4, 2015

2016 GEHA. dental. FEDVIP Plans. let life happen. gehadental.com

Zions Bank Economic Overview

Schedule of Commissions

Exhibit 1. The Impact of Health Reform: Percent of Women Ages Uninsured by State

Insured Deposit Program. Updated 03/31/2017

Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Overview & Implications

MEMORANDUM. SUBJECT: Benchmarks for the Second Half of 2008 & 12 Months Ending 12/31/08

Online Appendix for: Consumption Reponses to In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Introduction of the Food Stamp Program

Insured Deposit Program Updated 10/17/2016

CONTINGENT COVERAGES AVAILABLE FOR AUTO LESSORS

States and Medicaid Provider Taxes or Fees

Medicaid Expansion and Section 1115 Waivers

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E-Commerce: Estimates as of July 2004

Medicaid Funding and Policies Is There a Medicaid Crisis? A Financial Diagnosis for State and Local Government

The Global Macroeconomy:

Current Trends in the Medicaid RFP Procurement Landscape

Figure ES-1. International Comparison of Spending on Health,

Section 4(f) That was then this is now. Recent developments in Section 4(f) compliance

Award-Winning Mobility Solutions

Black Knight Mortgage Monitor

Uniform Consent to Service of Process

Patient Protection and. Affordable Care Act: The Impact on Employers

Domestic violence funding reduced from $1,253,000 to $1,000,000. $53,000 to fund elder law hotline eliminated.

Indexed Universal Life Caps

Texas Mid-Year Economic Outlook: Strong Growth Continues

While one in five Californians overall is uninsured, the rate among those who work is even higher: one in four.

50% are at or over 48, 50% are at or under 48 years of age (median) Cancer/Tumor registrars taking the survey ranged in age from 22 to 69

Benefits-At-A-Glance Plan Year

Obamacare in Pictures. Visualizing the Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Corporate Income Tax and Policy Considerations

Just The Facts: On The Ground SIF Utilization

AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT NAFTA. August

PLEASE NOTE: Required American Equity specific Product Training must be completed PRIOR to soliciting an Application to A

Commodity Taxes: Experiences with Tobacco and Alcohol Taxation

Commodity Taxes: Experiences with Tobacco and Alcohol Taxation

PORTFOLIO REVENUE EXPENSES PERFORMANCE WATCHLIST

The Impact of Health Reform s State Exchanges

Union Construction Labor Cost Trends and Outlook 2018

Charts with Analysis: Tax Tax Type: Sales and Use Tax Topic: Cash for Clunkers Payments

Statement of Daniel Hauser, Policy Analyst in Support of SB 398 Senate Committee on Workforce February 20, 2017

Aviva Announcing Changes to Products and Annuity Rates

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR REGISTRATION OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WITH STATE VERSIONS

Distribution of Account Balance up to $5,000 under a 457 Plan

Real Gross Domestic Product

Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board and Business Advisory Council Update

Long-Term Care Education Requirements Prior to Selling

Transcription:

The welfare state in the US and Europe: why so different? Rodolfo Debenedetti Lecture November 20th, 2002 Alberto Alesina Harvard University and IGIER Bocconi

Question: Why there is less redistribution of income from the rich to the poor in the US than in Europe?

The question is NOT why the size of government is larger in Europe than in the US. The question is NOT whether redistributive effort is successful or not and at what costs.

Data: - Size and composition of government spending - Pension systems - Taxation - Labor market regulation

Table 1. Composition of General Government Expenditure, 2000 Percent of GDP Country France Germany Sweden United Kingdom Total a 48.7 43.3 52.2 37.3 Consumption Goods and Services United States 29.9 5.3 9.2 0.4 10.6 3.3 Continental Europe c 44.9 8.3 12.4 1.5 17.6 2.5 9.7 10.9 9.8 11.4 Wages and salaries 13.5 8.1 16.4 7.5 Subsidies 1.3 1.7 1.5 0.4 Social benefits and other transfers b 19.6 20.5 20.2 15.6 Gross investment 3.2 1.8 2.2 1.1 Source: Authors calculations based on data from OECD Economic Outlook Database (No. 71, Vol. 2002, Release 01), June 2002. a. Totals also include interest payments and some categories of capital outlays. b. Includes social security. c. Simple average for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Table 2. Government Expenditure on Social Programs, 1998 Percent of GDP Country France Germany Sweden United Kingdom Total 28.8 27.3 31.0 24.7 Old-age, disability and survivors United States 14.6 7.0 0.5 0.4 5.9 0.9 Continental Europe d 25.5 12.7 2.3 2.7 6.1 1.7 13.7 12.8 14.0 14.2 Family a 2.7 2.7 3.3 2.2 Unemployment and labor market programs 3.1 2.6 3.9 0.6 Health b 7.3 7.8 6.6 5.6 Other c 2.1 1.5 3.2 2.0 Source: Authors calculations based on data from OECD Social Expenditure Database 1980-1998 ( 3 rd Edition), 2001. a. Includes cash benefits and in kind services. b. Includes, among other things, inpatient care, ambulatory medical services and pharmaceutical goods. c. Includes occupational injury and disease benefits, sickness benefits, housing benefits and expenditure on other contingencies (both in cash or in kind), including benefits to low-income households. d. Simple average for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Pension systems imply a redistribution from young to old. However poor old get proportionally much more than the rich and this effect is stronger in Europe than in the US

Figure 1: Difference in marginal tax rates, in %, between the US and EU15 (excluding Denmark) The difference equals the US marginal tax rate minus the unweighted average European marginal rate for each income class. 8 6 4 2 0-2 -4-6 -8-10 -12-14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 % of average production worker wage

Table3 Labor markets in the US and in Europe Labor standards Employmen t Protection Minimum annual leave Benefit replacement Benefit duration 1985-93 1990 (weeks) 1992 ratio (%) 1989-94 (years) 1989-94 France 6 14 5 57 3 Germany 6 15 3 63 4 Sweden 7 13 5 80 1.2 UK 0 7 0 38 4 European Union (1) 4.8 13.5 3.8 58.7 2.6 US 0 1 0 50 0.5 Source: Nickell and Layard (1999) and Nickell (1997) 1. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK.

25 Figure 2.2: Government expenditure on subsidies and transfers (% of GDP) 1870-1998 (obtained from Table 2.4) 20 15 10 5 0 1870a 1937 1960 1970 1980 1998 Difference European Union United States

Summary * Redistribution from the rich to the poor is much more extensive in Europe. * Some disadvantaged categories (sick, elderly, large families) also have protection in the US (although less than Europe), very few transfers to the poor per se in the US.

Private charity Charity contributions are much larger in the US than In Europe: charity per capita in the US in 2000 is $ 691 per capita, against 141 for UK and 57 for Europe as a whole.

Explanations: *Charity as partial substitute for public welfare *You can choose to whom you give charity, but not how your taxes are spent

Why Europe redistribute more? Possible explanations - economic explanations - political explanations - behavioral, sociological explanations

Economic Explanations 1) The pre tax distribution of income: more pre tax inequality, more demand for redistribution in a democracy.

It does not work: pre tax inequality much higher in the US than in Europe. Gini coefficient is 38.5 in the US, 29.1 in Europe. In the US top 20 per cent gets 43.5 of pre tax income, in Europe 37.1 per cent.

2) Variability of income and openness More open economies have more variability of income and therefore government transfers are needed to stabilize.

It does not work: very weak cross country evidence. The US GDP is much more volatile than European countries GDP.

Table 4 Economic variability in the US and Europe (Standard deviations) Series Sample Range US EU15 GDP growth 1960-1997 0.020 0.017 Total manufacturing labor productivity 1980-1996 0.026 0.016 Unemployment rate (1) 1970-2000 0.414 0.220

3) Efficiency of the tax system Tax system is more efficient in Europe, costs of collecting taxes lower. Easier it is for the government to levy high taxes to redistribute.

Very weak evidence of this effect. European tax systems are very different from each other. Tax evasion is probably lower in the US than in continental Europe.

Political Explanations 1) The electoral systems Proportional electoral systems are associated with larger transfer spending programs in OECD countries. The US and the UK have two of the least proportional electoral systems. Northern European countries have very proportional systems.

Figure 4 Transfers/GDP vs. Log (Proportionality) OECD countries

2) Lack of a strong socialist/communist party in US history The strength of socialist parties is strongly associated with the expansion of the welfare state

3) Role of the judiciary system and the Supreme Court Special role of US Supreme court. Throughout US history at least until the mid part of the past century, Supreme Court always rejected welfare legislation arguing that it would go against private property. A famous case was the rejection of a federal income tax in 1894.

FD Roosevelt had to win a battle over the Supreme Court in the nineteen thirties to pass welfare legislation (Court Stacking)

Why the US and Europe have chosen different institutions?

1)The adoption of proportional electoral systems When, why, and how proportional systems were chosen in many European countries

Proportional representation is recent : a conversion to proportional representation happened mainly between 1917 and 1920 Proportional representation reflected the growing power of labour movement and socialist parties. The United States did not get proportional representation because the socialist party was much weaker.

Also, in the United States proportional representation was considered too favourable to minorities like Blacks and recent immigrants. Conservative forces within the US were too powerful to allow a reform of that magnitude.

2) The lack of an American Socialist party: why? * Racial fragmentation * Economic opportunities * Political institutions and electoral rules: the President, the Senate, the Supreme Court * Density and size of the US * The role of wars * Ideological biases of US Trade Unions

3) the stability of American Constitutionalism Old versus new constitutions

Behavioral and sociological explanations: Perceptions of poverty Americans believe that the poor are lazy; Europeans believe that the poor are unfortunate.

According to the World Value Survey, 71 per cent of Americans versus 40 per cent of Europeans believe that the poor could become rich if they tried hard enough

Social Spending/GDP vs. Mean Belief That Luck Determines Income

What explains this difference in beliefs?

Protestant Ethic Racial fragmentation Self selection of those who emigrated from Europe to the US

Protestant Ethic *Culture based on wealth indicating your worthiness. *Frugality, working hard as way of showing your moral value. *Weberian view of protestant ethic as an engine to capitalism.

Racial fragmentation Race relations are an extremely important determinant of US politics. Racial differences are often more important than income differences in explaining how people vote.

A large body of evidence shows that the white majority does not want to redistribute to the poor because the latter are perceived as different ethnically or racially.

Evidence confirmed by both individual level study (response to surveys) and aggregate studies.

AFDC Monthly Maximum vs. Percent Black By State Maximum Monthly AFDC Benefit For 3 Person Family 1990 800 600 400 200 0 AK CA VT CT HI RI NY MN MA NH WA WI MI ME SD ND UT OR IA KS PA NJ NE CO WY NV IL MT OK OH DE VA AZ IN MO FL ID NM WV KT AR TX TN 0.1.2.3.4 Percent Black 1990 NC MD AL GA SC LA MS

Social Spending/GDP vs. Race Fractionalization

Self selection of immigrants The US is a nation of immigrants. those who chose to move from their own country may be those more likely to believe that one can escape poverty by taking risks.

What are the effects of these different beliefs? Sense of justice : if you believe that luck (or inherited wealth) determines differences in income, you are more favourable to redistribution. If you believe that individuals effort and ability determines income, you are less favourable to redistribution

Individual survey evidence: those who believe that society is fair, that is people get what they deserve, they are less favourable to redistribution

Possibility of two equilibria In Europe high taxes, disincentive to work and invest, a larger proportion of income is determined by inherited wealth and luck In the US lower taxes higher investment, a larger proportion of income is determine by effort.

So both European and Americans may be right about what determines income, luck or effort.

The American self-made person: Myth or reality?

Conclusions The answer to the question of why the welfare states in the US and in Europe are different brings us back to long lasting historical and cultural differences between the two sides of the Atlantic.

*Simple economic explanations fail. *Explanations based upon institutional differences go in the right direction but are incomplete because they do not tell us why institutions are different.

* The investigation of why institutions are different has lead us to long lasting and many geographical and historical differences between the two sides of the Atlantic * Perception about the poor and different ethical values are also extremely important * The origin of these ethical values is associated, amongst many other things, to differences in history, to the self selection of those who crossed the Atlantic