Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Euroland's Secret Success Story

by whataboutbob Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 02:14:57 AM EST

Promoted by Colman

I was responding to a comment about the French economy in another thread, and I realized I should post a diary on this. In this weeks's Nation Magazine, there is an article "No Flat World in Europe", by a Thomas Geoghegan (which you have to subscribe to) in which he addresses the reality (not the myth) of the success of the US/British economic models versus the EU.

The European miracle is often said to be the one that took place in the 1950's, right after World War II. But that was catch-up too. The real European miracle is the one that has happened in the past 10 years: Europe (especially France and Germany) has engaged in a restructuring of its manufacturing - successfully. The threat to Europe right now is the violence of the rhetoric agaisnt the model, the bizarre doom and gloom, when it is actually doing well. The nerve-wracking thing about Europe at the moment is the possibility that ordinary Europeans will lose their nerve and just cave in to their American-wannabe elites


The author addresses the Tom Friedman-American Neo-conservative line of BS, that the US/British economic model is better than Europe, which basically suggests that the French (and Europe in general) are 'too social', (read this: lazy) and that any social-focused economic system is not as good as the "free market" system. However, Goldman Sachs wrote a report last year ("Euroland's Secret Success Story") that suggests just the contrary: that the European economy is just as good as, or better than the American economy, and that a lot has to do with differences in what numbers are counted: (From Politiquessociales.net)

http://www.politiquessociales.net/Docs/MirrorMirrorOnTheWall.htm

I suggest reading the whole article, its quite informative, but here are some snippets:

GDP figures exaggerate America's relative performance, because its population is growing much faster. GDP per person (the single best measure of economic performance) grew at an average annual rate of 2.1% in America, against 1.8% in the euro area--a far more modest gap.
(...)
Furthermore, all of that underperformance can be explained by a single country, Germany, whose economy has struggled since German reunification in 1990. Strip out Germany, and the euro area's annual growth in GDP per person rises to 2.1%, exactly the same as America's.
(...)
The most popular myth is that America's labour-productivity growth has outstripped that in the euro area by a wide margin...but the difference between productivity growth in America and the euro area is exaggerated by misleading, incomparable figures.For the euro area, the European Central Bank publishes figures for GDP per worker for the whole economy. This shows a growth rate for the period of only 1.5%. But unlike the American numbers, this figure includes the public sector, where productivity growth is always slower, and it does not adjust for the decline in average hours worked.

 I would add that in the US the unemployment numbers aren't truthfully or accurately being counted  (in news from Boston this week,  there have been reports about deliberate undercounting of unemployment numbers...surprise, surprise), which if you counted the people who are not on unemployment, or have given up looking, I would wager that the unemployment in the US is more like the 9% (or worse) than in France. Plus, at least in France, you are better protected and supported, whereas in the US, job security doesn't really exist, and god forbid you lose your job...good luck. No...the French have it better, imho.

At the end of the Geoghegan article, he makes this statement (again from the Nation):

The European miracle is often said to be the one that took place in the 1950's, right after World War II. But that was catch-up too. The real European miracle is the one that has happened in the past 10 years: Europe (especially France and Germany) has engaged in a restructuring of its manufacturing - successfully. The threat to Europe right now is the violence of the rhetoric agaisnt the model, the bizarre doom and gloom, when it is actually doing well. The nerve-wracking thing about Europe at the moment is the possibility that ordinary Europeans will lose their nerve and just cave in to their American-wannabe elites

Spread the word...

Display:
Here's more food for thought, again from the Geoghegan article:

Last year, according to the WTO, German export goods had a value of more than $915 billion. China had a value of about $593 billion. In the so-called flat world of Europe, it turns out that the country with the world's highest labor costs is the world's champion exporter. Add in France, et al, and the EU is even further ahead - last year it had export goods of more than 1.5 trillion dollars.(...)The (American) neo-liberals have been brilliant at rattling German self-confidence over...well, not much


"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 06:49:29 AM EST
thanks bob for this post, and for the links (which I cannot get access to for now...)

There is indeed a propadanda and ideological war going on, and you should always take anything written in English about the French and German economies with a grain of salt...

One of my intentions with this site is to bring out a less gloomy vision of continental Europe (while obviously trying not to be blind to the very real problems that exist).

As I wrote elsewhere, Eurolande has a much more sustainable economy, not being propped up by a giant credit bubble and a huge corporate-subsidising war spending spree, and having a much more equal sharing of the wealth being created.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 09:22:30 AM EST
The problem is that our economic elites, and to be more specific, the French and especially the German economic elites spread the same false rhetoric. And not out of defeatism. It is ironic, but 15 years after the fall of communism we have a full-blown class war in the Marxist sense: it isn't really Anglo-Saxon vs. Rhineland Capitalism and French Statism, but neoliberals from the capital-owning class (be them in the economy, politics or media) in all countries vs. the rest, with the former having achieved various levels of advance with their destructive project.

And the reason I can't agree with bob's friend's optimism is that those who are poised to take over in Germany have abadoned the Rhineland Capitalism model and adopted the neoliberal ideology as their programme. They are selling the poison as the medicine against Germany's 'chronic problems', and not without success. while those they'll throw out also all but capitulated in front of it (despite repeated failure of the economy to give the jobs they promised for 'market-friendly' reforms). Only WASG/PDS is left to talk outside the frame now, but the message is painted as that of scary populists and extremists.

Germany is going down the American way. Except, there won't be a flood of foreign capital drawn by the propped-up numbers of voodoo economics to financially mask the actual destruction. I hope Merkel & co crash before getting too far.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 12:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I jumped over bob's last quote (I saw the others are from a reprint of the same Economist article we discussed in other threads before), but now I see Geoghegan says the same:

The nerve-wracking thing about Europe at the moment is the possibility that ordinary Europeans will lose their nerve and just cave in to their American-wannabe elites


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 12:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed, and that Sarkozy doesn't make it to French president in 2007. Sarkozy is France's leading pro-free-market politician -- at least, he's the one who has far and away the best chance of getting into power. A Merkel/Sarkozy tandem would be a disaster.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 03:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One must also be careful about interpreting unemployment figures, because they count people who are "in the workforce," that is, looking for work. If you stop telling the unemployment office that you're looking, then you're not counted any more.

Conversely, if you look at the rate of employment instead of unemployment, some countries have low numbers because the society doesn't expect as many people to work.

For example, according to the OECD, France has an employment rate of 62% and a standardized unemployment rate of 9% (2003 numbers), while the U.S. has an employment rate of 71% and unemployment of 6%. It can be argued that so many Americans work because they "need" to, while the French are free to work less. Or, it can be argued that the French economy isn't able to provide employment for its people.

Basically it's hard to compare countries.

by asdf on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 12:22:05 PM EST
As I argued elsewhere,  I think a comparison that makes sense is the ratio of those with jobs to the total population (rather than working-age population or workforce), tough even that is struck by differing definitions.

In the USA, using the payroll survey that is said to be more reliable on overall numbers, there are 133.537 Americans in non-farm jobs today. In the household survey, which is more reliable on relative changes, (and has to be adjusted regularly), 141.638 million total with jobs. According to the population clock on the US Census Bureau right now, there are 296,642,102 US residents. That gives a ratio of 45.02% for non-farm jobs in the payroll survey and 47.75% for jobs in the household survey.

For a comparison, I take Germany. For people with jobs,  I use the German Statistical Institute's number, 38.84 million. For population, I'll take the latest number [pdf], the 82.501 million at the end of last year. The ratio is 47.08%.

So, in the end, there is barely a difference in the ratio of people who earn money and people who live from what others earn. In fact, if the US household survey errs upward in the absolute number of people with jobs, Germany may be ahead!

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 01:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I now expanded this into a diary entry.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 01:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it doesn't control for age structures. A very young Third World country is going to have ridiculously low employment levels, same for the  very old Germany of twenty years from now. Your measure makes sense if looking at dependency ratios but not for the employment situation. I really don't see what's wrong with the 'working age' figure - except for possible differences by country of amount of education. Lots of people going to college will skew the numbers.
by MarekNYC on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 01:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
problematic measure (none / 0)
Because it doesn't control for age structures.

Well, my very argument is that age structures don't truly matter! :-) My argument is that changes in the age structure (and workforce age limits) only shift costs into different categories. I expound on the argument in a bit more detail in my diary post.

A very young Third World country is going to have ridiculously low employment levels, same for the  very old Germany of twenty years from now.

Hm. I don't understand. How does a very old Germany mean very low employment levels?

My measure also makes sense if looking at the employment situation. Perhabs you were thinking of only children vs. unemployed, but as I wrote, the latter is also a function of retirement age.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 06:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Economics are far from being my strong point; but I'd like to know how the UK and US are lumped together in this? I know that Thatcher did a lot of damage, and Blair is continuing with his Thatcher-lite New Labour. However, we still have employment benefits and laws that are light years away from those in the US.

I have, on a number of occasions, seen US criticisms of the UK as 'socialist' (not that I have ever understood how that is a criticism) because we have decent paid holidays, paid sick leave, compassionate leave, maternity rights. We have protection in employment law from arbitrary firings.

by Boudicca (badgerval at hotmail dot com) on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 03:48:15 PM EST
well, the UK authorities have certainly been busy branding themselves as a dynamic, freemarket country and emphasising how different they were from the failing, stagnant, unsustainable, etc,... continental European economies. This, of course, despite conducting a massive borrow and spend policy to try to improve the health and education public sectors...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 05:10:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, a pont I wouldlike to stress is that under Brown, the UK economy acquired some traits of the US economy like trade deficit and private spending on credit - and just these were the key to the statistics trumpeted as success of the Third Way.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 05:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not an economic expert either...just interested. I think the lumping together happens in a number of ways...by Blair, primarily (going back to the Thatcher-Reagan connection, I believe), but also in anti-European system articles articles by Thomas Friedman and other US Neo-conservative "free marketers". That said, you do have an important point...I should be careful about totally correlating the two...perhaps you could do a diary looking at how there is a connection between US and British systems, and where there is divergence...just a matter of hunting up articles and data. It would be important to know more about these differences and similarities in more detail.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 05:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems that both the Europe is sclerotic and the Europe is doing fine article have the same flaw - selective data.

First of all taking out Germany is ridiculous if your talking about the Euroland. It represents roughly a third of the Euroland economy. Italy and Spain, the third and fourth largest Euro economies respectively have their own problems. Italy is stagnating and has a fiscal problem from hell - they'd love to have our budget problems, hell they'd love to have pretty much anyone's. Spain is booming but in large part on the sort of real estate bubble basis of the US.  Germany incidentally is not doing great fiscally and its long term fiscal picture is scary due to its looming demographic crisis. As a result it would need to raise taxes even more than the US would but it would be starting from an already higher level of taxation.  Of course it doesn't exactly need to worry about its current account situation.  The one big Euro economy which I would agree is in overall better shape than the US is France. Not that it doesn't have its problems, but they seem smaller or easier to solve than the structural current account deficit and credit bubble of the US.
Now if someone could explain why the French are so damn pessimistic about themselves. Is it really all due to their unemployment problem?

by MarekNYC on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 01:22:42 AM EST
Germany was taken out with the argument that it is in special condition: subsidizing its onetime communist part. Italy's budget deficit will be 3.6% this year, that's above the EU limit, but far from a point to dream about US levels of deficit: it was at the same level last year, but let's not forget that US GDP numbers are bloated by the massive use of hedonic price indexing, and about exceptional costs/expenses. Spain has less of a bubble than a growth (it is still kind of a developing country, not saturated with estate development), and EU money infusions also play a role in its boom. I countered the talk about demographic crisis elsewhere.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 06:38:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition to its deficit Italy has an already huge level of public debt - above 100% of its GDP. That's why I said it could only dream of being in the US fiscal situation.
by MarekNYC on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 12:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm really starting to see the value of reading non-English language publications. I'm not necessarily saying that a lot of the criticism of continental European economies has no basis. But if you're only getting your cues from the Economist, you're - quite literally - only getting one side of the story. I suggest that you should read Le Monde Diplomatic, which in many ways is a superior publication to the Economist (and not because I'm more comfortable with its politics, although LMDiplo is a bit to my left). Read it in French or in English.
by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Mon Jul 18th, 2005 at 11:54:41 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]