Child poverty weakens the Anglo-American model For more than 30 years neoliberals have held up the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK as examples that other countries must follow to achieve economic success and high levels of social well-being. Yet, according to a recent Unicef report on child welfare, these are the worst two industrial countries in which to grow up. Is the Anglo-American model really as successful as neoliberals claim? (...) Child poverty had doubled in the UK between 1979 and 1998, which it called "a legacy of the 1980s - a decade characterised by a distinctly pro-rich growth pattern that left poor people behind". A major cause was "the impact of [Thatcher] government policies that cut taxes for higher earners and lowered benefits for the poor". (...) In the US the consequences of similar policies and the lack of universal healthcare (unique among advanced countries) have been even more serious. According to the UNDP report: "A baby boy from a family in the top 5 per cent of US income distribution will enjoy a lifespan 25 per cent longer than a baby boy from the bottom 5 per cent." Not surprisingly, when you consider the whole population, not just children, the two countries, especially the US, lag behind the nations of "old Europe", whatever indicators of well-being are used. (...) The importance of these comparisons is that they consistently show that countries with social democratic or corporatist models of capitalism have markedly higher levels of social well-being than those, such as the US and UK, with a liberal free-market model. Equally important, the reason for this is not that they have higher gross domestic product per head but that their social attitudes, objectives and policies are very different. Unlike the US and, since 1979, the UK, these countries attach great importance to social cohesion and, therefore, to equality of opportunity. (...) If these achievements are, as neoliberals believe, a sign of failure, what constitutes success?
For more than 30 years neoliberals have held up the US and, to a lesser extent, the UK as examples that other countries must follow to achieve economic success and high levels of social well-being. Yet, according to a recent Unicef report on child welfare, these are the worst two industrial countries in which to grow up. Is the Anglo-American model really as successful as neoliberals claim?
(...)
Child poverty had doubled in the UK between 1979 and 1998, which it called "a legacy of the 1980s - a decade characterised by a distinctly pro-rich growth pattern that left poor people behind". A major cause was "the impact of [Thatcher] government policies that cut taxes for higher earners and lowered benefits for the poor".
In the US the consequences of similar policies and the lack of universal healthcare (unique among advanced countries) have been even more serious. According to the UNDP report: "A baby boy from a family in the top 5 per cent of US income distribution will enjoy a lifespan 25 per cent longer than a baby boy from the bottom 5 per cent."
Not surprisingly, when you consider the whole population, not just children, the two countries, especially the US, lag behind the nations of "old Europe", whatever indicators of well-being are used.
The importance of these comparisons is that they consistently show that countries with social democratic or corporatist models of capitalism have markedly higher levels of social well-being than those, such as the US and UK, with a liberal free-market model.
Equally important, the reason for this is not that they have higher gross domestic product per head but that their social attitudes, objectives and policies are very different. Unlike the US and, since 1979, the UK, these countries attach great importance to social cohesion and, therefore, to equality of opportunity.
If these achievements are, as neoliberals believe, a sign of failure, what constitutes success?
The importance of these comparisons is that they consistently show that countries with social democratic or corporatist models of capitalism have markedly higher levels of social well-being than those, such as the US and UK, with a liberal free-market model. Equally important, the reason for this is not that they have higher gross domestic product per head but that their social attitudes, objectives and policies are very different. Unlike the US and, since 1979, the UK, these countries attach great importance to social cohesion and, therefore, to equality of opportunity. (...) If these achievements are, as neoliberals believe, a sign of failure, what constitutes success?
But not to worry, the European Commission is hard at work dismantling whatever social cohesion is left on the European Mainland.
EUROPA > European Commission > Economic and Financial Affairs > Publications > Country Focus: Social cohesion in the Czech Republic: a blessing or a trap? (by Marek Mora, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, in September 2006)
When using indicators of inequality of income distribution and the at-risk-of-poverty rate, the Czech Republic has one of the highest levels of social cohesion in the EU, comparable to that of the Nordic countries. Though social transfers play a significant role in reducing the Czech poverty rate, it is the country's relatively equal distribution of primary income that contributes most to the level of social cohesion overall. This can be explained by several factors, in particular by the quality of education, the homogeneity of society, regulation of rental housing, the gradual nature of the transition process and other historical reasons. Economic theory and empirical evidence are not clear-cut on what the impact of social cohesion is on economic efficiency and growth. Though social cohesion can have a positive economic impact on growth, the tax-transfer system, if badly designed, may have harmful consequences for labour supply and for the sustainability of public finances as seems to be the Czech case.
Don't you know anything?
