Piketty: “Why have democratic regimes failed to reduce inequality?”

This is the question asked by Thomas Piketty in a recent presentation on “Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right: Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict - Evidence from France, Britain & the US, 1948-2017 (February 2018). His answer, which is documented by very extensive and useful data, is fairly complex but it could, in a nutshell, be summarised thus: in the '50s and ‘60s the Democratic Party in the US and social democratic parties in Europe were supported by a variety of voters characterised by low education and low income. Globalization (by raising the issue of internal and external inequality) and the expansion of education (creating educational inequalities next to wealth inequalities) have created new multi-dimensional conflicts about inequality and redistribution.

Democratic regimes – answers Piketty – have failed to reduce inequality because "without a strong egalitarian and internationalist platform, it is unlikely that voters by low education and low income will all vote for the same party. The division between racism and nativism is a powerful force that divides the poor in the absence of a strong unifying platform. Politics has never been a simple conflict between the rich and the poor; we need to look more carefully at the content of political cleavages." Piketty argues that since the '70s and' 80s a political system has evolved that pits two transversal coalitions against each other: the intellectual elite of left wing Brahmins against the business elite/merchant right, both sharing the divided support of a working class whose interests are radically different and are not reflected in the parties.

A similar argument, without the massive documentation provided by Piketty but perhaps more fully argued, has been provided by Jan Rovny on the LSE Europpblog on 20 February: “What happened to Europe’s Left?”  I confess that being a left-wing economist I found the argument rather appealing, so I circulated both Piketty’s presentation and Rovny’s paper to a circle of colleagues and friends who I knew would be interested. However one of them, a political scientist whose views on the subject I had specifically solicited, was provoked by those arguments to provide a long critical comment, which I thought deserved to be aired more widely. Therefore I am very glad to post such a Comment below, with the author’s permission on condition of anonymity. DMN

Piketty's enthusiasm for his discovery of political science is heart-warming. You asked me for a view:

i)  to adopt a brush as broad as does Piketty is to empty much of his argument to rest upon historical and particularly statistical data available.

ii)  comparative politics can be useful but arbitrary lumping-together of very different political systems and cultures because of accessibility of chosen data sources leads to incoherence not to affirmation of a thesis.

iii)  the same goes for taking very long data series and arbitrarily cutting them off within his time terms of reference.

So what has he achieved?  He has produced a hypothesis, reflecting journalistic speculation, that the voting behaviours of electorates formerly possible to analyse in economic and class terms have altered across groups; this is causing the collapse of parties of the Left which he views as rooted in common economic and class interests.  Electorates are no longer voting for donkeys wearing a red rosette.  Electors in positions of authority are no longer voting in their economic self-interest.

Neither of these theses are correct; nor does the statistical, behavioural, historical evidence demonstrate that there is any past time in which they were.  Piketty picks and chooses his way through his data to show that they were but the clear association of change brought about by revolution, war, or some socio-economic or other catastrophe, is telling.

iv)  identifying a Piketty-esque Europe as Europe leads to warping of supporting evidence for his thesis; so does using United States data (size, lack of common history, slavery, just for starters; I could go on - that there is no 1945 break for the US as there is for Europe, that the living standards of the US and those of Europe are too far apart for long periods even within Piketty's dates...).  For Piketty Europe is the European Union, and mostly France at that.  Even within this narrowing of the study where is the data on Germany, Italy, the low countries, the East, the far North?  He should drop the US and start considering real Europe, not the EU.  There is a European community of culture, experience, economy and development, although that Europe tends to exclude the second of his data sources, the United Kingdom.

v)  Data series for the UK go back much further than for continental Europe; those on which Piketty relies can be produced from at least the beginning of the eighteenth century and many from the seventeenth and even earlier, both for electoral behaviour and for collections of data on conditions of life, state-organised welfare systems, educational records, health systems, social and work-related housing - the panoply of the modern welfare state is present and recorded.  Its roots make the electoral results of July 1945 the product of victory in war not the poverty of defeat as experienced by continental states, including France despite their pretences.  And as soon as the war economy had served to complete the installation of the redistribution that had been taking place for centuries in the UK, even if overshadowed by the Depression in the ‘20s and ‘30s where it had been fully used and available, nevertheless, the 1951 general election swept the Labour government away. 

The UK returned to something very similar to the redistributions that had been taking place for a long time, shedding the role of the state always associated with authoritarian regimes of Left or Right. The redistributive role of an extensive welfare state was fully accepted by all political groupings, there was no post-War watershed as there was in continental Europe (where populations were widely illiterate, still working the land and often as share-croppers, and urbanisation and modern industrialisation was still to come despite the best efforts of Left and Right).  Labour never recovered, and Margaret Thatcher moved every aspect of the state's role in government on to other ground that socialism or capitalism choices, as Blair's electoral success confirmed.

So, in many ways Piketty's use of UK data is as inappropriate as his use of that of the US.  He wants to tie together some kind of factual link between 'want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness' and voting Right: what the UK data show is not that.  The Five have been tackled and defeated and the people vote Right for aspiration, self-fulfilment, the barring of the Five's reintroduction into their countries via third-world immigration, and a continued growth in their living standards and capacities to learn and achieve.

Yes the decline in voting for Piketty's Left is terminal for electorates have moved on as he and his Left have not. Political parties are re-grouping, that is very clear, but they regrouping to defend the people and their life-styles against out-dated ideologies of deprivation in all its forms.

Tony Judt spoke of 'ideological over-commitment' (although in another context, that of Israel, much of his work on France and the French Left embodies this critique); Piketty would benefit greatly from reading (or re-reading) Tony Judt. Another book he might add to his to read list is: Robert Trelford McKenzie and Allan Silver, Angels in marble; working class Conservatives in urban England, 1968.

Rovny is ponced-up Piketty.  There is a flat refusal to accept the role of Conservative working people in the construction of organisations, in institutions, in governance that has been present always (i.e. since records in the Piketty form) have been available.  It is the securing of decent wages, the legitimising of trades unions, the achievement of access to health care, the educating of every child to competent literacy and numeracy, the universal suffrage, pension support in old age, insurance, ... all the stuff the Left claims - it is all the product of skilled working people and the arrangements and agreements they have set in place over the centuries yes, centuries in the case of the UK.

The ideological Left cannot cope with the truth of this.  Their function has been to create revolutionary, i.e. war-like shocks that disrupt so much there must be destruction and then a settlement.  If the Left cannot produce a revolution then the Conservative working class can manage much better without them.  And often better than with them frankly.  There has to be technical backwardness, widespread illiteracy, gross deprivation of democratic governance, low life expectancy, and the general presence of the Five before revolution and the Left is required.  

Europe has been revolutionised and warred into what the UK did with working class conservatism (admittedly after the 17th century revolutions as a start-up shock, but that is a very long time ago) since capitalist industrialisation and urbanisation.  Even the localist organisations listed by Rovny are the result of municipal conservatism – why do you think it's modern Labour that individualises the social consumption of social provision, or closes pools, libraries, parks, evening classes etc. etc?

The Left is ineffective and very ugly.  Unless there's a revolution or a war to be raged.

Michael Ellman on the UK Elections

Professor Michael Ellman, of Amsterdam University and an old colleague, co-author and friend, appears to have become our resident phsephologist. He promptly sent me his valuable comments on the UK elections, authorising me to publish them as a Guest Post on this Blog, which I am delighted to do at once. Here is Michael's assessment on the day after (DMN).

(1) Theresa May took a gamble and lost. She was misled by opinion polls that showed a huge lead for her party before the election was called and also by the fact that a majority of Labour MPs had no confidence in Corbyn.

(2) Nevertheless, the Conservatives can form a new government and carry on. The Conservatives will be the biggest party in the new House of Commons and have almost half the total number of MPs. Together with one of the Northern Ireland parties (the Democratic Unionists) the Conservatives will have a (small) majority and will be able to push their legislation through Parliament (provided that their own party remains united).

(3) May's own personal position has been seriously undermined and she will not be able to last five years as Prime Minister. Some other senior figures in the Conservative party (such as Boris Johnson) will seek to take over. Even for her to last 12 months will be very difficult.

(4) The Conservatives got 42% of the vote. That shows that there is a solid block of the population (private sector, professionals, business people, the elderly) who back them.

(5) The Labour party got 40% of the vote. Thuis shows that there is a solid block of the population (students, public sector employees such as teachers and nurses, tenants facing high rents, low-income groups, minority ethnic groups) that opposes austerity and cuts to the public sector. Allowing for the 3% gained by the SNP (Scotttish National Party) which has a similar economic outlook to the Labour party, this shows that slightly more people voted againt austerity than supported it.

(6) Jeremy Corbyn ran a very successful campaign. That shows that in the UK and USA a candidate to the Left of orthodox opinion, such as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn can enthuse a large part of the population, especially the young. (Turnout rose a couple of percent compared with the last election.)

(7) The decline of the SNP in Scotland and the improved showing there of Unionist parties, notably the Conservatives, make the break-up of the UK less likely.

(8) As far as Brexit is concerned, about half the population (supporters of Labour, SNP and the Liberal Democrats) voted for parties that would prefer a so-called soft Brexit (e.g. membership of the European Economic Area à la Norway) to the complete break that Theresa May seems heading for.

We live in interesting times.

Unpacking CETA

This Guest Post on CETA - the Canada-EU Trade Agreement scheduled to be signed at the end of October - was contributed by Peter Rossman, Director of Campaigns and Communication for IUF (the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations). After thorough reading he wrote this contribution, which originally appeared in the Global Labour Column edited by CSID (Corporate Strategy and Industrial Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg). We are grateful for his permission to reproduce it here. An earlier extended paper on “Trade Deals That Threaten Democracy” is also available. (DMN)

‘The Parties hereby establish a free trade area…’ CETA Article 1.4.

‘Trade, like Religion, is what every Body talks of, but few understand: the very Term is dubious, and in its ordinary Acceptation, not sufficiently explain’d.’ Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce (1728).

The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), like other looming mega-treaties, is a comprehensive vehicle for expanding the scope of transnational investment by rolling back the capacity of governments to regulate in the public interest. The attack on democratic governance is not restricted to the notorious Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which privileges transnational capital by creating a parallel legal system exclusive to transnational investors. The invasive claims of transnational investors permeate the entire treaty. 

'Free Trade' and the expanding investor universe. Canada and the EU are already among the world’s most open economies. Tariffs are at a historic all-time low. CETA’s primary mission is to eliminate ‘non-tariff barriers’ – namely the laws and regulations constructed over decades of struggle to limit corporate power and support the services and policies needed to defend workers, citizens and the environment. CETA is an investment treaty embedded in a comprehensive deregulatory project.

The treaty leaves existing regulations and policies in Canada and the EU vulnerable to investor challenges – directly through ISDS, or indirectly through corporate-driven state-to-state dispute mechanisms. It also forecloses the use of essential policy tools which progressive governments will need to reverse the social destruction which is feeding an authoritarian, nationalist and xenophobic right.

The treaty builds on an expansive definition of investment which broadens its scope beyond existing treaties between Canada and the EU. It is virtually identical to the leaked draft investment chapter in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The ‘legally scrubbed’ official CETA text states, tautologically: ‘Investment means every kind of asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment.’ (CETA, 2014: 39). Characteristics of an investment include ‘the expectation of gain or profit.’ In addition to direct investment in an enterprise, ‘investment’ includes stocks, shares, bonds and other debt instruments; concessions, ‘including to search for, cultivate, extract or exploit natural resources’; intellectual property rights and ‘other moveable property, tangible or intangible, or immovable property and related rights’, and ‘claims to money or claims to performance under a contract’ (CETA 2014: 39ff) A corporation need only demonstrate a ‘legitimate expectation’ of profit to challenge regulatory obstacles to realising that expectation.

The market access and national treatment provisions set out in the investment chapter apply to governments at every level, erasing all restrictions in the name of ‘non-discrimination’. The treaty prohibits governments from managing foreign investment for distinct objectives, and prohibits any restrictions on profit repatriation.

‘Indirect expropriation’. The investment chapter ‘reaffirms’ governments’ rights to regulate in the public interest, but investors are guaranteed expanded ‘fair and equitable treatment’ and protection against ‘indirect expropriation’ of anticipated profits through the adoption of new laws and regulations. The dispute settlement body will determine whether indirect expropriation has occurred through a ‘fact-based inquiry that takes into consideration, among other factors: the extent to which the measure or series of measures interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations’ (CETA, 2014: 331; emphasis added). Indirect or ‘regulatory expropriation’ has enabled a growing number of successful investor challenges to public interest laws, regulations and court decisions through investor-to-state lawsuits.

Public services are exempted from market access, national treatment and performance requirements and the most-favoured-nation provisions of the investment chapter only to the extent that they are ‘carried out neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more economic operators’. This is the phantom public sector carve-out established in the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement. As there are pockets of private business in most public services, few meet these criteria. Parties must explicitly reserve the services they wish to exclude – the negative list approach – based on the United Nations’ 1991 Central Product Classification, whose thousands of entries blur the distinction between public and private and manufacturing and services. Standstill and ratchet clauses freeze current levels of privatisation, making it difficult, and costly, for governments to take privatised services back into public hands.

CETA’s Domestic Regulation chapter is not restricted to services. Governments must ensure that any regulatory restrictions they maintain or adopt ‘do not unduly complicate or delay the supply of a service, or the pursuit of any other economic activity’ (CETA, 2014: 91; emphasis added). Article 2 of the chapter on Technical Barriers to Trade reinforces limits on regulation by stipulating that technical regulations must ‘not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective’[1].

The chapter on Government Procurement widens corporate penetration into governments at every level by generalising ‘national treatment’ and prohibiting ‘offsets’, defined as ‘any condition or undertaking that encourages local development’.

The Financial Services chapter allows for loosely-defined ‘prudential measures’ but weakens the potential to restrict the size or market share of financial institutions even where such measures are ‘non-discriminatory’ with respect to foreign and national investors. Governments seeking to restrict the introduction of new financial ‘products’, or limit the size of financial corporations, will find that financial corporations have, through CETA, insured themselves against regulatory risk.

The chapter on Regulatory Cooperation commits signatories to ‘remove unnecessary barriers to trade and investment’ and ‘enhance competitiveness’ through an unaccountable Regulatory Cooperation Forum, which institutionalises corporate lobbying. The Forum is tasked with reducing compliance costs, exploring ‘alternatives’ to regulation, and promoting the ‘recognition of equivalence and convergence’ – a blunt instrument for levelling protection. Governments will share ‘non-public information’ with their Forum counterparts before the information is shared with lawmakers or the public – all ‘without limiting the ability of each Party to carry out its regulatory, legislative and policy activities’!

Regulatory approaches are to be ‘technology-neutral’ – a requirement at odds with the vague promise in the chapter on Trade and the Environment in which the parties ‘commit to cooperate in means to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of low-carbon and other climate-friendly technologies’.

How important is investment (and its proxy ‘trade in services’) compared with trade in goods in CETA? The treaty provisions cease to apply 180 days after notice of intention to terminate. However Chapter 8 (Investment) remains in force for a full twenty years (CETA 2014: Article 30.9).

Labour’s agenda? After the Brexit vote, the European Commission announced that CETA – scheduled to be signed at the EU-Canada summit in late October – would be treated as a ‘mixed agreement’, requiring approval by the national parliaments of EU member states as well as by the main EU institutions. But the Commission proposes that the treaty enter immediately into ‘provisional’ force following approval by the European Council and European Parliament, meaning that its investment provisions would apply for some years before full ratification, and even if one or more member state voted to sink the deal.

Unions and our civil society allies are unanimous in calling for the removal of ISDS from the treaty. The European Commission’s rebranding of ISDS as an investment court fails to eliminate its fundamental toxicity (See for example Eberhart, 2016) and should be rejected on similar grounds.

But ISDS is only one element, albeit a major one, in CETA’s comprehensive corporate power grab. Transnational investors can press their claims through state-to-state dispute mechanisms, as the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body demonstrates. The expansive claims of transnational investors are systematically built into the treaty; corporate confiscation of democratic governance links the chapters. ISDS cannot be surgically excised, leaving a text which then somehow serves as a vehicle for a progressive trade agenda. Nor can a sweeping charter of investor claims be ‘balanced’ by inserting stronger provisions to defend labour rights or protect the environment. CETA is fundamentally hostile to democracy and the labour movement; it has to be scrapped, not ‘improved’.

Behind CETA, or course, lurks the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Should TTIP fail, many of its ambitions can be realised through CETA. The majority of US transnationals have Canadian subsidiaries with activities and ‘expectations of profit or gain’ in the EU. They can use ISDS and other provisions to feed their growing appetites. EU corporations can sue the government of Canada, but also use Canadian subsidiaries to attack European regulations they find inconvenient, reinforcing the EU’s current retreat from regulation.

For long decades, labour has been fighting purely defensive battles against the neo-liberal trade and investment agenda; we lack an agenda of our own. Lost ground will not be reclaimed on what is fundamentally hostile territory. Crisis, stagnation and the longest investor strike in recent history will not be reversed through stronger doses of neo-liberalism. Substantial programs of public investment are needed to address mass unemployment, inequality, disintegrating public services and climate change. CETA and its flanking treaties effectively preclude them.

[1] The leaked TTIP draft chapter on Technical Barriers to Trade makes creative use of most-favoured-nation to establish that ‘Each Party shall allow persons of the other Party to participate in the development of standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures,’ and ‘Each Party shall permit persons of the other Party to participate in the development of these measures on terms no less favorable than those it accords to its own persons.’

References

CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) 2014.

Eberhart, P. (2016) The Zombie ISDS, Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.

POSTSCRIPT

Our Italian readers will find useful these links on the subject:
http://nuke.carloclericetti.it/CetailcavallodiTroia/tabid/473/Default.aspx on the Trojan horse nature of CETA in the event of TTIP not going through, and  http://clericetti.blogautore.repubblica.it/2016/07/06/il-ceta-passera-dai-parlamenti/ on the European Commission decision, last July, to treat CETA as a “mixed” issue, thus requiring the necessary unanimous approval by all 36 European Parliaments (some member states have more than one). The decision was taken under pressure from Austria, Germany and France, whereas Italy had originally supported treating CETA as a “European only” issue requiring only qualified majority of heads of state and government, and subsequent ratification by the European Parliament without possibility to introduce changes. However, as Peter argues in his guest post above, CETA will be provisionally implemented from approval by the European Parliament.

For an earlier discussion of CETA ìn Italian see also http://goofynomics.blogspot.it/2016/07/ceta-ue-e-brexit-oculos-habent.html

Winter chill in Hungary

Note: This is a guest post contributed by Yudit Kiss, a Hungarian economist based in Geneva, author of several academic publications dealing with the post-Cold War economic transformations of Central Europe. Her articles of wider interest have been published by the Guardian, Lettre International, El Nacional, Nexos, Gazeta Wyborcza & Eurozine.

The only electoral promise Fidesz has fulfilled has been the “restoration of order”, through a myriad of laws, decrees and regulations, a particularly harsh new Penal Code and several new organizations.

On October 23, Hungary commemorated the anniversary of the 1956 revolution, but few Hungarians had cause to celebrate except the ruling Fidesz party, which is eagerly looking forward to next spring’s parliamentary elections.

Fidesz has learned the lessons of its previous spell in power, when in 2002 general disenchantment with its performance lost it the elections. Back in power since 2010, all measures have been taken to avoid a similar defeat. The Fidesz–led government granted voting rights to Hungarian minorities living abroad, changed the election system, redesigned electoral districts, eliminated checks and balances built over the past two decades, reshaped the juridical system and has gained nearly full control over the media and all state institutions.

In addition to a tax system that favours the rich, economic assets from land to productive capacities and infrastructure have been re-distributed to create a new class of loyal, privileged crony capitalists (and large and growing numbers of the poor and very poor). By extending state control over key companies, expropriating the private pension funds and recently, the Savings Cooperatives, by channeling EU money and using the economy’s remaining reserves, the government is able to lavishly finance its own projects and distribute money to its clients through public procurement policies. A recent Transparency International report describes a “state captured by private interest groups”.[i]The government can also finance large-scale publicity campaigns to convince citizens that it acts relentlessly on their behalf, from “defending the country’s independence” to artificial lowering of utility charges.

The economy is at a standstill, with the bulk of investments financed from EU funds. Unemployment is officially close to 10%. Half of those without work are long-term unemployed, and joblessness among youth is nearly 30%. The government’s “solution” to a stagnating labour market has been an expensive and inefficient “public work” system in which job-seekers are employed by (predominantly Fidesz-led) local authorities and compelled to accept whatever work is offered them, often in primitive conditions at less than the official minimum wage.

In September the Statistical Office reported that 3.2 million persons, nearly 33% of the population, live in poverty, including half a million in deep poverty and deprivation.[ii] The drastic reduction of unemployment assistance, welfare benefits and social services, coupled with punitive measures against the poor, homeless and marginalized make their situation desperate. 70% of the country’s approximately 700,000 Gypsies, who under the former system at least had work but have now been brutally expelled from the labour market, live in abject poverty.[iii]

The only electoral promise Fidesz has fulfilled has been the “restoration of order”, through a myriad of laws, decrees and regulations, a particularly harsh new Penal Code and several new organizations, like well-equipped special anti-terrorist units, fancily dressed Parliamentary Guards to discipline MPs, special bodies to supervise public workers and even a school police force with rights to control and search school-age kids.

Through a complex system of regulations, economic pressure, intimidation, propaganda and hand-outs the government has extended its control over its citizens’ life from the cradle to the grave, from economics through the education system to artistic creation, including the private sphere, with measures that spread from encouraging marriage and child birth to the reform of state funeral services, going as far as authorizing itself to spy on state employees and their families.

Each of these measures has chilling details that reveal the nature of the system. Teachers, whose work conditions have significantly worsened, have to join a government-created ‘National Teachers’ Body’ and are expected to sign an ‘Ethical Code’ created by it; youngsters can risk two years of prison if they share a joint at a school party; the poor are offered a “social burial” - an (initially) free site in a separated section of the cemeteries, with uniform graves fabricated by prisoners - provided they bury their dead themselves.

Protest, dissent and criticism are actively discouraged, neglected or dealt with by one of Fidesz’ basic methods of governing: ‘divide et impera’. The government’s outspoken critics come under virulent, orchestrated attacks. Criticism abroad – including from the EU institutions in Brussels - is dismissed as “unfounded” or ‘fuelled by international capital and business’ or by the internal opposition that “betrays” the fatherland. And if all this were not enough to secure a next mandate, the government has less elegant methods. In a recent municipal election in Baja, Roma families were paid and driven to the ballot box to cast their vote for Fidesz. (Some over-zealous opposition activists forged a video to “prove” the fraud - when they were caught, Fidesz was able to turn the whole affair to its advantage.)

Nevertheless, Fidesz probably wouldn’t need to use its heavy weaponry, since its opposition is pathetically weak and divided. The ‘Együtt 2014’ (Together 2014) electoral platform that evoked high hopes when it was founded a year ago has failed to come out with a convincing alternative vision for the country. But even if the opposition miraculously pulls itself together to win next Spring’s elections, the new government’s hands would be tied by Fidesz legislation and Fidesz appointees who occupy all key state positions, from the juridical system to media supervision, with long mandates stretching over election cycles. The case of Esztergom, where since 2010 the Fidesz-dominated city government has paralyzed the whole city to obstruct an independent mayor, is a sinister foreboding.

According to recent polls[iv], the large majority of the population believes that things are bad and will deteriorate further in Hungary. However, 42% of potential voters don’t know who to vote for and probably won’t participate in the next elections. Absenteeism mixed with massive disappointment in mainstream political forces is a dangerous cocktail, like the advance of the far right in Europe shows. Jobbik, the Hungarian party of the extreme right, is looking confidently forward to next Spring, like Fidesz. At present 26% of potential voters would vote for Fidesz - enough for them to win the elections and have again an overwhelming majority in Parliament, thanks to the electoral system they’ve installed.

This year’s commemoration of the 1956 revolution and its aftermath played out the worst-case scenario for the coming election year. Prime Minister Victor Orban used the national holiday as his Party’s first electoral rally, greeting the “spontaneous” masses of the “Peace March” (organized and sponsored by loyal Fidesz supporters) from a platform decorated with a sea of national flags and surrounded with armed soldiers. His speech was a violent call for battle against the country’s external (‘colonizers, speculators and international financiers’) and internal enemies (former, present and would-be “Communists”, including their “comrade”, ‘tavarish’ Tavares) ‘who sold the country’ and ‘would shoot at us today …if they could’. [v]

In front of the building of the Technical University, where the first student rally that set in motion the mass protest movement in October 1956 started, a large crowd of opposition supporters gathered hoping to revive hope in a free and democratic country – the real message of 1956. Instead of the so much needed demonstration of unity, the event turned into a disheartening manifestation of division and in-fights in the ranks of the various opposition formations that has been going on since. The day after the national holiday, a government official and media close to Fidesz launched yet another attack against the philosopher Agnes Heller, who dared to criticize the government in an interview with Swedish television.

A couple of days later a government-backed march was held all over the country to demand autonomy for Sekler’s Land (a part of Transylvania with a large Hungarian population that belonged to pre-WW1 Hungary) organized by a civil society organization and some of the Peace March organizers. By the end of the week, a bronze statue of Admiral Miklós Horthy[vi], a former ally of Hitler, the leader of Hungary between 1920 and 1944, was unveiled at the entry of a Reformed Church located in the centre of Budapest, by the Church Minister, well-known for his extreme-right views and by the same Jobbik MP who some months ago demanded the listing of Jewish members of Parliament. In his first reaction, the Fidesz mayor of the district only managed to regret the fact that this provocation might fuel further ”anti-Hungarian” criticism in western “leftist” media. 

This is a rather pernicious preview of a possible future for the country. Hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call for those who want to live in a different Hungary.

---

[i] http://www.transparency.hu/National_integrtity_study

[ii] http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/laekindikator/laekindikator12.pdf

[iii] http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file9_hu_civil-society-monitoring-report_hu.pdf; http
[iv] http://hvg.hu/itthon/20131017_Ipsos_nott_az_ellenzek_tabora  & http://median.hu/object.aa1da5a0-e054-4ffb-8e6f-784e318108e1.ivy
[v] http://www.kormany.hu/hu/miniszterelnokseg/miniszterelnok/beszedek-publikaciok-interjuk/a-nagysag-dicsoseget-hagytak-orokul-1956-hosei
[vi] http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/political-controversy-over-the-role-of-regent-miklos-horthy-1920-1944/

More on Hungarian Populism

My friend the Hungarian economist Yudit Kiss (Geneva) contributes this comment:

Dear Mario,

You are very right about the parallels between Berlusconi and Orban – Viktor Orban is clearly inspired by Berlusconi but there are several points where he goes much further then any of the populist leaders today.

Since last April the Fidesz-MPP Party, that won a 2/3 majority of the Parliamentary seats in Hungary, started to dismantle systematically the democratic institutional system that was built during the last 20 years. The process started with the drastic curtailment of the powers of the Constitutional Court, then those of the Budget Council, the rights of the media, an attack on the independence of the National Bank, the introduction of a whole series of new laws and regulations, crowned with the hasty introduction of a new Constitution, all written to suit the values and interests of the governing party.

The new Constitution will be followed by the introduction of 39 "fundamental laws" (that need the approval of 2/3 of MPs) that regulate such basic dimensions of life as labour, voting rights, the pension system, party financing or the regional administrative system. These laws will be created within a year, probably by the same method as the Constitution and the other new laws that have been accepted by the completely docile Parliament since last April, i.e. with the exclusion of independent experts, social partners and the political opposition.

According to Fidesz, last April a Revolution took place at the ballot box and this gives them the right to change radically key dimensions of public and private life in Hungary – from the tax system to social welfare, from street names to education, from film-making to the right to vote. Since the new Constitution declared that Hungary is a Christian country and life is sacred since the moment of conception, the prohibition of abortion and the introduction of compulsory religious education might be just a question of time. Another measure with long-term consequences is the increased tenure of key public functions, so that even if it lost the next elections, Fidesz' interests would be represented at the highest levels under future governments. The new Constitution limits further the independence of judges (and abruptly lowers their retirement age, so that a large-scale renewal of the profession's staff and its leaders) making it even more difficult for everyday citizens to fight for their rights. The President of the Supreme Court was not consulted or informed about this measure previously; neither were the Director of the 1956 Institute or the Rector of the Corvinus University, who learnt about the end (the planned dissolution, in the case of the latter) of their institutions from the media.

With the signing of the Constitution by the President, who faithfully follows the governing party's directions, Hungary ceased to be a Republic and became “the country of the Hungarians". Fidesz claims to act on behalf of the "nation" and the nation includes Hungarians living abroad. One of Fidesz's first steps was that of offering citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living outside the country, promising them voting rights for the next elections. If the EU cannot prevent this, Fidesz will indeed reign for 20 years (as its leaders promised before the elections) and a very dangerous precedent would be created inside the Union.

According to the canon of the populist-nationalist rhetoric, Ministries and several public institutions became "National" and the government is in permanent fight against external and internal enemies. In the Prime minister's speeches Hungary is portrayed as an exceptional country that is not acknowledged by the world at its true value. The country's external enemies are international capital, the IMF and the World Bank, and according to Orban's speech pronounced at the 15th of March national holiday, Brussels that intends to "dictate Hungarians what to do from outside" but is doomed to fail. Internal enemies are the representatives of the previous governments, many of whom are subject to criminal charges, including former PM Ferenc Gyurcsany, or those who occupied leading positions under the previous government. (Corruption is undoubtedly a very grave and generalized problem of Hungarian society and there were some very corrupt Socialist politicians active during the last two cycles - together with corrupt politicians from other parties, including Fidesz – but the criminalization of the whole previous political leadership is more a political manoeuvre then an exercise in transparency.) The critics of the system, particularly if they raise their voice publicly abroad, are also labelled "enemies of the country", as shown by the current witch-hunt against the best of Hungarian philosophers.

Fidesz is on its way to build a genuine party-state – changing the management of state and public institutions and extending its control over spheres that enjoyed a considerable autonomy before, like regional or local governments or independent institutions, partially financed by the state. According to a decision taken in December, 35 prestigious independent public foundations, including the world-famous Institute Peto for handicapped children, several foundations defending minority rights or the 1956 Research Institute, have been dismantled. The directors of public media, theatres, academic institutions, schools, many public companies and institutions have been changed, when the institution itself is not closed down. Those who occupied leading positions under the former governments, including school headmasters, hospital directors or elected leaders of independent organizations have to reapply for their jobs and many of them are replaced. Party affiliation often overrules professional competence and, if arbitrary decisions are not accepted meekly, sometimes a whole professional team pays for it. In a recent, utterly Ubuesque episode the President of an intergovernmental committee in charge of deciding about geographical names was sacked, because he disagreed with the government's proposed new name for Budapest Airport that left out "Ferihegy", the traditional name that was used for decades. 20 out of 21 members of the professional committee had the same view, but the government's proposal went through and later the whole committee was dissolved.

In his first speech after the elections last year Mr Orban promised to put in order the economy, strengthen public order and then start work on a new Constitution. The economy was "put in order" in a way Janos Kornai describes in the NÉPSZABADSÁG article you quoted in a comment to your post on Populism. Many of the country's best economists criticise sharply the government's economic policy, including experts with such diverse backgrounds as Laszlo Csaba, Tamas Bauer, Gabor Oblath, Andras Inotai or Tamas Mellar. Public order was "restored" by a revision of the penal code and the introduction of severe punishments even for minor offences, like speeding, or smoking in certain public places, like bus stops. There are plans to lower the age of legal responsibility to 14.

Beyond the populist rhetoric, however, actual measures do not serve the interests of ordinary people. The new tax system favours the better-off sections of the population, welfare services are being and will be radically cut back, prices of public services are raised, while the new Constitution curtails seriously labour rights.

One of the first conflicts between the government and the Constitutional court broke out due to a new regulation that makes it possible to dismiss public employees without justification. In his pre-election speeches Orban promised 1 million new jobs in 10 years. According to the latest report of the Hungarian Statistical Office, in one year 13,000 new jobs were created, but at least 50,000 jobs were lost. Unemployment stagnated at 11.6%, but was 26.8% among first job seekers (between age 15-24) and reached 10.8% in the age group of 25-54. Average unemployment lasts 18 month, an increase of 1.8 month. The new regulations are also very harsh on the poor, jobless, homeless, marginalised, handicapped, including those on invalidity pensions. Some of these measures are utterly grotesque, but given the general context, one does not feel like laughing; homeless people can be fined for "using public spaces for living" and in some districts of Budapest those who are caught scavenging in the garbage bins also have to pay fines.

The new power's way of dealing with dissent is also very disturbing. After the first months' startled silence, public protests started with a small group of University students who took to the the streets in December with a slogan: "We are the first generation born in a state of law, we don’t want to be the last one." Demonstrations and meetings have multiplied since, including an approximately 30,000 strong gathering in defence of press freedom on the 15th of March national holiday, organized by a small team of civil society activists and a joint, Hungarian and international trade union protest that gathered about 50,000 participants in April. The government usually ignores these massive expressions of dissent, clearly stating that it does not consider necessary to follow a dialogue with its political adversaries, potential social partners or its people. If there is a dialogue it takes the form of choosing one privileged interlocutor – e.g. one particular trade union or one Roma organization – as the only legitimate representative of a certain constituency, with which the government carries out exclusive discussions. Another form is a practically ex-post and formal "popular consultation" that was used in the case of the Constitution; approximately 2 weeks before the final text was presented to Parliament, every citizen received a personal letter with 12 questions about the future text that did not touch any of the crucial points of the document. According to government sources approximately 920,000 persons responded, so the Constitution could be said to have been publicly and democratically discussed and accepted by the people.

In other cases, however, the government's reaction to criticism is harsher. Following recent demonstrations of public order organisations, including firemen, who protested against new measures that take away some of their social gains and worsen their working conditions, the changing rooms were searched and prosecutions were started against several participants, because they marched in their uniform that is not permitted by the current regulations. For this week-end's planned demonstration the firemen plan to borrow uniforms from their Austrian colleagues and hopefully no one will be persecuted. International solidarity helps…

In another, very telling case, the independent mayor of Esztergom, a city some 45 kms away from Budapest, revolted against the Fidesz majority city council that has been obstructing her work ever since her election in the municipal elections in last October. Following the mismanagement of the previous Fidesz leadership, the town is on the verge of bankruptcy and the new mayor wanted to put things into order. Backed by the inhabitants of the town, she asked for help from the government, but had no reply. Finally, she decided to walk to the Parliament, accompanied by a delegation from the city's civil society representatives and sympathizers all along the road. She was not received by any government representative and could only hand over her protest letter addressed to Viktor Orban to a MP at the gate of Parliament. In her absence the city council met, headed by a senior official and passed some new measures without consulting her.

The case of Hungary also demonstrates one of the most serious dangers of the recent breakthrough of the extreme-right; the adaptation of their language, arguments and objectives by mainstream political currents. The Hungarian extreme-right party Jobbik entered Parliament at the last elections. Jobbik is not a coalition partner and Fidesz and Jobbik often display their differences publicly; however, Jobbik's language has entered the public discourse, its arguments are taken up by mainstream politicians and it has been implementing its policy with increasing self-assurance and tacit support. One of the leit-motifs of Jobbik's political agenda is the "fight against Gypsie criminality" and this Spring they started to put into practice their agenda. Since early March Jobbik activists and uniformed members of the "Civil Guard Association for a Nicer Future" (successor of an outlawed, openly racist paramilitary organization, the Hungarian Guard) marched up and down in the village of Gyongyospata, "maintaining order", terrorizing, humiliating and harassing the entire Gypsy population, as a retaliation after a Roma youth was caught stealing wood in the nearby forest. The police stood by, having the order only to intervene if atrocities were committed on either side. Violence broke out in late April, after a stormy Easter weekend that most Roma families spent separately; women and children were evacuated to a youth camp near Budapest, because "Nicer Future" had scheduled a "training weekend" next to the Gypsy settlement. This led to a country-wide scandal (government officials stating that the Roma just left for a holiday and accusing the opposition of wipping up a scandal to discredit the country), and, finally the arrest of some of the leaders of the paramilitary organisation. When they were released a couple of days later and "shared their joy" with the embattled Gypsy community, a massive fight broke out (fortunately nobody was killed) and the government hastily took a measure to forbid "uniformed violence".

I could go on and on. There are some good sites that cover developments in English, see e.g. http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/,
http://hungarianwatch.wordpress.com/. A site summarising events in Gyongyospata http://gyongyospatasolidarity.wordpress.com/ .

You are also right about proposals for solutions. Unfortunately we live in a time of crisis, and the solutions that are being used to tackle this crisis are actually making it worse. People all over the world express their frustration with politics and the present state of affairs, but are not able to offer genuine solutions. New economic and social models are urgently needed!

Inequality and the Global Crisis

This is a Guest Post contributed by Branko Milanovic, a Lead economist in the World Bank's research department. Branko - at present a Visiting Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford - spent over a quarter century working on poverty and inequality and made original, pioneering contributions to this subject, including: Worlds Apart. Measuring International and Global Inequality, 2005, Princeton/Oxford; The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Short and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality, 2011, Basic Books (DMN)


The current financial crisis is generally blamed on feckless bankers, financial deregulation, crony capitalism and the like. While all of these elements may be true, this purely financial explanation of the crisis overlooks its fundamental reasons. They lie in the real sector, and more exactly in the distribution of income across individuals and social classes. Deregulation, by helping irresponsible behavior, just exacerbated the crisis; it did not create it.

To go to the origins of the crisis, one needs to go to rising income inequality within practically all countries in the world, and the United States in particular, over the last thirty years. In the United States, the top 1 percent of the population doubled its share in national income from around 8 percent in the mid-1970s to almost 16 percent in the early 2000s. That eerily replicated the situation that existed just prior to the crash of 1929, when the top 1 percent share reached its previous high watermark American income inequality over the last hundred years thus basically charted a gigantic U, going down from its 1929 peak all the way to the late 1970s, and then rising again for thirty years.

What did the increase mean? Such enormous wealth could not be used for consumption only. There is a limit to the number of Dom Pérignons and Armani suits one can drink or wear. And, of course, it was not reasonable either to “invest” solely in conspicuous consumption when wealth could be further increased by judicious investment. So, a huge pool of available financial capital—the product of increased income inequality—went in search of profitable opportunities into which to invest.

But the richest people and the hundreds of thousands somewhat less rich, could not invest the money themselves. They needed intermediaries, the financial sector. Overwhelmed with such an amount of funds, and short of good opportunities to invest the capital as well as enticed by large fees attending each transaction, the financial sector became more and more reckless, basically throwing money at anyone who would take it. While one cannot prove that investible resources eventually exceeded the number of safe and profitable investment opportunities (since nobody knows a priori how many and where there are good investment opportunities), this is strongly suggested by the increasing riskiness of investments that the financiers had to undertake.

But this is only one part of the equation: how and why large amounts of investable money went in a search of a return on that money. The second part of the equation explains who borrowed that money. There again we go back to the rising inequality. The increased wealth at the top was combined with an absence of real economic growth in the middle. Real median wage in the United States has been stagnant for twenty five years, despite an almost doubling of GDP per capita. About one-half of all real income gains between 1976 and 2006 accrued to the richest 5 percent of households. The new “gilded age” was understandably not very popular among the middle classes that saw their purchasing power not budge for years. Middle class income stagnation became a recurrent theme in the American political life, and an insoluble political problem for both Democrats and Republicans. Politicians obviously had an interest to make their constituents happy for otherwise they may not vote for them. Yet they could not just raise their wages. A way to make it seem that the middle class was earning more than it did was to increase its purchasing power through broader and more accessible credit. People began to live by accumulating ever rising debts on their credit cards, taking on more car debts or higher mortgages. President George W. Bush famously promised that every American family, implicitly regardless of its income, will be able to own a home. Thus was born the great American consumption binge which saw the household debt increase from 48 percent of GDP in the early 1980s to 100 percent of GDP before the crisis.

The interests of several large groups of people became closely aligned. High net-worth individuals and the financial sector were, as we have seen, keen to find new lending opportunities. Politicians were eager to “solve” the irritable problem of middle class income stagnation. The middle class and those poorer than them were happy to see their tight budget constraint removed as if by magic wand, consume all the fine things purchased by the rich, and partake in the longest US post World War II economic expansion. Suddenly, the middle class too felt like the winners.

This is what more than two centuries ago, the great French philosopher Montesquieu mocked when he described the mechanism used by the creators of paper money in France (an experiment that eventually crumbled with a thud): ‘People of Baetica”, wrote Montesquieu, “do you want to be rich? Imagine that I am very much so, and that you are very rich also; every morning tell yourself that your fortune has doubled during the night; and if you have creditors, go pay them with what you have imagined, and tell them to imagine it in their turn”.

The credit-fueled system was further helped by the ability of the US to run large current account deficits; that is, to have several percentage points of its consumption financed by foreigners. The consumption binge also took the edge off class conflict and maintained the American dream of a rising tide that lifts all the boats. But it was not sustainable. Once the middle class began defaulting on its debts, it collapsed.

We should not focus on the superficial aspects of the crisis, on the arcane of how “derivatives” work. If “derivatives” they were, they were the “derivatives” of the model of growth pursued over the last quarter a century. The root cause of the crisis is not to be found in hedge funds and bankers who simply behaved with the greed to which they are accustomed (and for which economists used to praise them). The real cause of the crisis lies in huge inequalities in income distribution which generated much larger investable funds than could be profitably employed. The political problem of insufficient economic growth of the middle class was then “solved” by opening the floodgates of the cheap credit. And the opening of the credit floodgates, to placate the middle class, was needed because in a democratic system, an excessively unequal model of development cannot coexist with political stability.

Could it have worked out differently? Yes, without thirty years of rising inequality, and with the same overall national income, income of the middle class would have been greater. People with middling incomes have many more priority needs to satisfy before they become preoccupied with the best investment opportunities for their excess money. Thus, the structure of consumption would have been different: probably more money would have been spent on home-cooked meals than on restaurants, on near-home vacations than on exotic destinations, on kids’ clothes than on designer apparel. More equitable development would have removed the need for the politicians to look around in order to find palliatives with which to assuage the anger of the middle-class constituents. In other words, there would have been more equitable and stable development which would have spared the United States, and increasingly the world, an unnecessary crisis.

Vladimir Popov replies on China

[A Guest Post by Vladimir Popov, New Economic School, Moscow, vpopov@NES.RU, http://www.nes.ru/~vpopov]

I am very grateful to everyone who commented on my post of 24 May on the Uniqueness of Chinese Capitalism. Here are some brief replies that I hope might promote further debate.

Mario stresses the prohibition of trades unions and strikes in today’s China. Well, trade unions formally exist, but the right to strike is really not guaranteed by Deng’s constitution, although it was guaranteed by Mao’s constitution. (By the way, the relative popularity of Mao and Deng in China today could be measured by observing the numbers at the memorial site where people can go and put virtual flowers to personalities they like: http://jidian.china.com Since 2009 and until July 8, 2010, Mao got over 2 million bouquets of flowers, Deng – only 33,000, less than Zhou Enlai (nearly 200,000) and Norman Bethume, a Canadian doctor helping Republicans in Spain in 1936-39 and Communists in China during the Anti-Japanese and Civil Wars (over 37,000)).

Mario questions my statement that all developed countries had authoritarian regimes in the past. “Including England, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the United States? If you said "many developed countries had before" nobody could argue, but all? You might say more about this presumably universal authoritarianism”. Well, I would stick to what I said – there was life before democracy, which emerged at a very late stage of human history. In ancient Greece neither women nor slaves had voting rights. In France in 1815-30 voters amounted to only 0.25-0.3 per cent of the population, and about 0.6 per cent in 1830-48. In England suffrage was extended by the Reform Act of 1832. Nevertheless, voting rights were received by 14-18 per cent of men only. Universal male suffrage was introduced only in 1928. In Germany, Italy, Belgium women were not given voting rights until after the Second World War. Rich countries were generally late in introduction of universal suffrage: it was granted in 1965 in the USA, in 1970 - in Canada, in 1971 - in Switzerland. (Polterovich, Popov, 2007).

Mario writes: “Mao's contribution to filling state coffers is fine, but did he really contribute to building state institutions? I thought Maoism had been fairly destructive rather than constructive in this respect?”

I referred to the fact that Mao created the “vertical of power” that not only Putin, but Qin Shihuangdi (the first emperor that unified China in 3rd century B.C.) could not have dreamt of. I gave the data on shadow economy and murders. I said that party cells were created in every village, so for the first time in China’s history the central government in Beijing could enforce decisions taken in the capital all across the country. And I explained that government for the first time in Chinese history started to collect reasonable revenues (always a problem in developing countries).

A couple of examples can be enlightening. In Mao’s days policemen used to be unarmed like most British Bobbies. Bank officials collected cash from retail shops at the end of the business day and carried it back to the bank on a bike or via public transport (and unarmed, of course). Today, the same procedure is different – armoured vehicles, bullet proof jackets, helmets, machine guns…

Another good indicator of the ability to maintain social order and the magnitude of non-compliance with existing regulations is the incarceration rate – the number of inmates per capita. It is 120 per 100,000 against 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 population in the US and 151 in the UK. Which is the “land of freedom” and which is the “prison state”?

Anonymous comments that the lower Chinese murder rate does not account for “capital punishment and the silent massacre of female babies along with the number of suicides directly or indirectly induced by Chinese state repression and rule of force”. It does account for capital punishment; Amnesty International estimates that “Legal murders” – executions (1000-2000 a year) account for about 5% of total murders.

“The silent massacre of female babies” is probably a reference to Berlusconi statement that “under Mao's China they didn't eat babies, but they boiled them to fertilise the fields” (Berlusconi, 2006). There is a debate, whether China has sex-selective abortions (although it is illegal for doctors in China to reveal the gender of the foetus) because China has one of the highest gender imbalances for the newborns. But “silent massacre of female babies” is as probable as “boiling them to fertilize the fields”.

And on “suicides directly or indirectly induced by Chinese state repression and rule of force”: the total number of suicides in China is 21 per 100,000, quite high by international standards, but less than in Japan and Finland, and way less than in Estonia and Hungary.

Alberto’s comment that “authoritarian types of mixed capitalist economy with an important steering role for the state have thrived in South-East Asia, from Japan to Singapore, to South Korea and Taiwan, without any communist connotations, leading those countries to development and prosperity” is missing the point. All the countries mentioned were supported by the US during the Cold War as counterweights to global communism, some even call this “development by invitation”. Not only did they receive Western assistance, but also, and most important, got access to US markets. In addition in Japan and Korea the agricultural reform was carried by the US occupation authorities and in Taiwan it took place under pressure from the US.

In a sense, Alberto writes, “over the long haul Chiang Kai-shek has triumphed over Mao. (An analogous consideration could be made with respect to Vietnam, where after a long bloody civil war the vanquished appear to have triumphed over the victors.)”. I would dispute that. Chiang Kai-shek, as the puppet South Vietnamese government, had the time to carry reforms and produce an economic miracle but failed to do so. There was no growth and no peace in China in 1928-48, when Chiang Kai-shek was the leader. When Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan (even after the so called “golden decade of the 1930s”), he left China with GDP per capita of $500 (Maddison, 2008), same as in 1500, and a life expectancy of 35 years.

To put it differently, to produce an economic miracle in Taiwan Chang Kai-shek had to be defeated and learn from his defeat and from the communists (and to carry out agrarian reform on the island that he never carried out in China) and to get a support from the US (access to the US market).

“…Maoism left the Chinese economy and society in such a bad shape that simply the demolition of Maoism produced the economic miracle”, says Alberto. This is wrong again. The catch-up development of China since 1949 was extremely impressive: not only were growth rates in China higher than elsewhere after the reforms (1979 onward), but even before the reforms (1949-79), despite temporary declines during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese development was quite successful. According to Maddison (2008), Chinese per-capita GDP was about 70 percent of India’s in 1950, rose to about 100 percent by 1958-59, fell during the Great Leap Forward, rose again to 100 percent of the Indian level by 1966, fell during the first years of the Cultural Revolution, and rose again to 100 percent by 1978. By 2006, it was more than twice the Indian per capita GDP. World Bank estimates, however, suggest that since 1960, Chinese growth rates (five-year moving averages) were always higher than Indian growth rates. Life expectancy in China in 1950 was only 35 years but by the end of the 1970s rose to 65 years—thirteen years higher than in India. Today, it is seventy-three years—seven years higher than in Russia and India. Some charts below (from Popov, 2009).

Berlusconi (2006). Communists boiled babies: Berlusconi. “Herald Sun”, 27 March 2006
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603618/posts

Maddison, A. (2008). Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2006 AD (http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls)

Polterovich, V. Popov, V (2007). Democratization, Quality of Institutions and Economic Growth.
-TIGER Working paper No. 102, Warsaw, July 2007.

Popov, V. (2009). Why the West Became Rich before China and Why China Has Been Catching Up with the West since 1949: Another Explanation of the “Great Divergence” and “Great Convergence” Stories. -NES/CEFIR Working paper # 132, October 2009.

How Normal Is Russia Now?

This is a Guest Post contributed by Professor Vladimir V. Popov, of the New Economic School, Moscow.

From 1989 to 1998 Russia experienced the transformational recession – GDP fell to 55% of the pre-recession 1989 level. In 1999-2008 the Russian economy was recovering at a rate of about 7% a year and nearly reached the pre-recession peak of 1989. But in 2009 due to the collapse of oil prices and the outflow of capital caused by world recession Russian GDP is expected to fall by 5-10%. Now, with some luck, the pre-recession level of GDP is to be surpassed only in 2010-12. For two decades there was no improvement in living standards for most of the Russians.

In 2004-05 Andrew Schleifer and Daniel Treisman published various articles claiming that Russia was A Normal Country (for instance, in Foreign Affairs, March-April 2004). They compared Russia with Brazil, China, India, Turkey and other developing countries and argued that in terms of crime, income inequalities, corruption, macroeconomic instability, and other typical curses of the third world Russia is by far not the worst – somewhere in the middle of the list, better than Nigeria, worse than China. In short – a normal developing country.

The USSR was an abnormal developing country. The Soviet Union put the first man into space, had about 20 Nobel Prize winners in science and literature, with universal free health care and education – the best among developing countries – low income inequalities and relatively low crime and corruption. By 1965 Soviet life expectancy increased to 70 years – only 2 years less that in the US even though per capita income was only 20-25% of the US level.

The transition to the market economy in the 1990s brought about the dismantling of the state – the provision of all public goods from health care to law and order fell dramatically. The shadow economy, which the most generous estimates place at 10-15% of the GDP under Brezhnev, grew to 50% of GDP by the mid 1990s. In 1980-85, the Soviet Union was placed in the middle of a list of 54 countries rated according to their level of corruption, with a bureaucracy cleaner than that of Italy, Greece, Portugal, South Korea and practically all the developing countries. In 1996, after the establishment of a market economy and the victory of democracy, Russia came in 48th in the same 54-country list, between India and Venezuela.

Income inequalities increased greatly – the Gini coefficient (ranging from 0 to 100%, the higher, the higher are inequalities) increased from 26% in 1986 to 40% in 2000 and 42% in 2007. The decile coefficient – ratio of incomes of the wealthiest 10% of the population to incomes of the poorest 10% – increased from 8 in 1992 to 14 in 2000 to 17 in 2007. But the inequalities at the very top increased much faster: in 1995 there was no person in Russia worth over $1 billion, in 2007, according to Forbes, Russia had 53 billionaires, which propelled the country to the second/third place in the world after US (415) and Germany (55) - Russia had 2 billionaires fewer than Germany, but they were worth $282 billion ($37 billion more than Germany's richest). In 2008 the number of billionaires in Russia increased to 86 with a total worth of over $500 billion – 1/3 of GDP.

Worse of all, the criminalization of the Russian society grew dramatically in the 1990s. Crime was rising gradually in the Soviet Union from the mid 1960s, but after the collapse of the USSR there was an unprecedented surge – in just several years in the early 1990s crime and murder rates doubled and reached one of the highest levels in the world. By the mid 1990s the murder rate stood at over 30 people per 100,000 of inhabitants against 1-2 persons in Western and Eastern Europe, Canada, China, Japan, Mauritius and Israel. Only two countries in the world (not counting some war-torn collapsed states in developing countries, where there are no reliable statistics anyway) had higher murder rates – South Africa and Colombia, whereas in countries like Brazil or Mexico this rate is two times lower. Even the US murder rate, the highest in developed world – 6-7 people per 100,000 inhabitants – pales in comparison with the Russian one.

The Russian death rate from external causes (accidents, murders and suicides) by the beginning of the twenty-first century had skyrocketed to 245 per 100,000 inhabitants. This was higher than in any of the 187 countries covered by WHO estimates in 2002. It was equivalent to 2.45 deaths per 1,000 a year, or 159 per 1,000 over 65 years, which was the average life expectancy in Russia in 2002. Put differently, if these rates continue to hold, 1 out of 6 Russians born in 2002 will have an ‘unnatural’ death. To be sure, in the 1980s murder, suicide and accidental death rates were quite high in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova and Kazakhstan—several times higher than in other former Soviet republics and in East European countries. However, they were roughly comparable to those of other countries with the same level of development. In the 1990s these rates rapidly increased, far outstripping those in the rest of the world.

The mortality rate grew from 10 per mille in 1990 to 16 in 1994, and stayed at a level of 14 to 16 per mille thereafter. This was a true mortality crisis, a unique case in history, when mortality rates increased by 60% in just 5 years without wars, epidemics or volcanic eruptions. Never in the postwar period had Russia such high mortality rate as in the 1990s. Even in 1950-53, during the last years of the Stalin’s regime with high death rate in the labor camps and consequences of the war time malnutrition and wounds, the mortality rate was only 9-10 per mille as compared to 14-16 in 1994-2008.

Russia became a typical “petrostate”. Few specialists would call the USSR a resource-based economy, but Russian industrial structure changed a lot after the transition to the market. Basically, the 1990s were the period of rapid deindustrialization and “resource-lization” of the Russian economy, and the growth of world fuel prices since 1999 seems to have reinforced this trend. The share of output of major resource industries (fuel, energy, metals) in total industrial output increased from about 25% to over 50% by the mid 1990s and stayed at this high level thereafter. Partly this was the result of changing price ratios (greater price increases in resource industries), but also the real growth rates of output were lower in the non-resource sector. The share of mineral products, metals and diamonds in Russian exports increased from 52% in 1990 (USSR) to 67% in 1995 and to 81% in 2007, whereas the share of machinery and equipment in exports fell from 18% in 1990 (USSR) to 10% in 1995 and to below 6% in 2007. The share of R&D spending in GDP was 3.5% in the late 1980s in the USSR, but fell to 1.3% in Russia today (China – 1.3%, US, Korea, Japan – 2-3%, Finland – 4%, Israel – 5%). So today Russia really looks like a “normal resource abundant developing country”.

To understand Russia now one has evaluate the record of the last 20 years. In the late 1980s, during Gorbachev’s perestroika, the Soviet Union was aspiring to join the club of rich democratic nations, but instead degraded in the next decade to the position of a normal developing country that is not considered either democratic or capable of engineering a growth miracle. For some outsiders a “normal developing country” may look better than that of an ominous superpower posing a threat to Western values. Those on the inside however feel differently. Most Russians want to find a way to modernize the country so as to make it prosperous and democratic. But they also feel that something went very wrong during the transition; the policies and political leaders of the 1990s are totally discredited. And so we find ourselves with Putin-Medvedev’s policy getting 50% plus approval rate even in the midst of economic recession.