Whose economy? Scotland in Northern Europe: balancing dynamic economies with greater social equality

1
Whose economy? Scotland in Northern Europe
balancing dynamic economies with greater social
equality
2
Whose Economy? Poverty and Inequality
3
Whose Economy? Oxfam/UWS seminar series

• Why persistent poverty exists alongside high
  economic prosperity, leading to significant
  inequalities in income and wealth, and in life
  chances and lifestyles, between individuals and
  communities. Why, despite decades of economic
  growth, regeneration and anti-poverty policies,
  many Scots face a life characterised by high
  mortality, economic inactivity, mental and
  physical ill-health, poor educational attainment,
  and increasing exclusion.
• Conclusion Our Economy, A Whose Economy Seminar
  Paper, June 2011,

4

• Why do we have less poverty than the United
  States, but much more than Norway, Sweden and
  Denmark? The reasons lie very much more in the
  distribution systems of the respective countries
  than in the personal behaviour of people in
  poverty. Why some affluent Western democracies
  maintain substantial poverty and others are more
  egalitarian and accomplish low levels of poverty
  is mainly due to the generosity of the welfare
  state.
• Adrian Sinfield, Whose welfare state now?, in
  Whose Economy?, http//policy-practice.oxfam.org.u
  k/publications/download?Id436761dlhttp//oxfami
  library.openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/1
  88809/5/dp-whose-economy-papers-complete-series-01
  0911-en.pdf

5
Recent quote

• The prime minister said there are countries in
  Europe, small countries that make it on their
  own, but ... we are better off, we are stronger
  together, we're fairer together, we're richer
  together.
• So must be able to measure strength, fairness,
  richness and so compare. And, given what weve
  heard here already this morning, can we identify
  an even better way?
• Are there countries that are more resilient,
  robust, competitive stronger, more equal with
  less poverty, greater gender equality and a
  progressive tax/welfare system fairer and more
  prosperous richer?

6
Richer?
7
International Monetary Fund (2011 estimate) International Monetary Fund (2011 estimate) International Monetary Fund (2011 estimate)

Rank Country US
1 Luxembourg 122,272
3 Norway 96,591
4 Switzerland 84,983
7 Denmark 63,003
8 Sweden 61,098
13 Finland 50,090
14 Ireland 48,517
21 Iceland 43,226
22 United Kingdom 39,604
8
International Monetary Fund (2011 estimate)
Rank Country Intl.
1 Qatar 102,891
4 Norway 53,376
13 Sweden 40,613
15 Ireland 39,507
16 Iceland 38,079
19 Denmark 37,741
21 Finland 36,723
22 United Kingdom 35,974
9
World Bank (2010)
Rank Country Intl.
1 Luxembourg 89,769
4 Norway 56,894
10 Ireland 39,727
12 Denmark 39,558
14 Sweden 38,947
19 Finland 36,660
20 United Kingdom 35,860
21 Iceland 34,949
10
CIA World Factbook (2010)
Rank Country Intl.
1 Qatar 179,000
5 Norway 54,600
17 Sweden 39,100
18 Iceland 38,300
20 Ireland 37,300
21 Denmark 36,600
26 Finland 35,400
27 United Kingdom 34,800
11
(No Transcript)
12
Scotland's long-term GDP growth performance
(1975-2005)

Source Eurostat, OECD, Scottish Government
13
Indicator Scotland Denmark Finland Iceland Ireland Norway Sweden
GDP growth - 30 year annual average 4 4 2 1 1 2 3
GDP per head 3 2 2 2 1 1 2
Employment rate (15-64 yr olds) 2 1 2 1 3 1 1
Productivity 2 2 2 3 1 1 2
Entrepreneurial activity 3 3 2 1 1 1 4
Total RD as GDP 3 2 1 1 3 3 1
Business RD as total RD 4 2 1 3 2 3 1
Graduates as of the population (aged 25-64) 2 1 3 1 2 1 2
Population growth (1999-2006) 4 3 3 1 1 2 3
Net migration as a of the population 2 4 3 1 1 2 3
Export sales growth -3 yr annual ave 4 3 3 2 3 4 2
14
Fairer?
15
Income inequality in selected OECD countries
Source OECD (2008), Growing Unequal? Income
Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries.
16
Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s


















Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Note Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5.
Source OECD income distribution questionnaire. Source OECD income distribution questionnaire. Source OECD income distribution questionnaire. Source OECD income distribution questionnaire. Source OECD income distribution questionnaire. Source OECD income distribution questionnaire.
17
At risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2010
of the total population of the total population of the total population of total population of total population
Persons at-risk-of-poverty after social transfers Persons severely materially deprived Persons aged 0-59 living in households with very low work intensity Persons falling under at least one of the three criteria (at risk of poverty or social exclusion) Persons falling under at least one of the three criteria (at risk of poverty or social exclusion)
Persons at-risk-of-poverty after social transfers Persons severely materially deprived Persons aged 0-59 living in households with very low work intensity 2009 2010
EU27 16.4 8.1 9.9 23.1 23.4
Denmark 13.3 2.7 10.3 17.6 18.3
Ireland 25.7
Finland 13.1 2.8 9.1 16.9 16.9
Sweden 12.9 1.3 5.9 15.9 15.0
United Kingdom 17.1 4.8 13.1 22.0 23.1
Iceland 9.8 1.8 5.6 11.6 14.3
Norway 11.2 2.0 7.3 15.2 14.9
18
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES () Nov 11 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES () Nov 11 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES () Nov 11 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES () Nov 11 SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES () Nov 11
Youth (under 25s) Males Females  
EA17 21.7 10.1 10.7  
EU27 22.3 9.7 10.0  
Denmark 14.9 7.6 7.9  
Ireland 29.3 17.3 11.4  
Finland 19.6 8.2 6.7  
Sweden 23.2 7.6 7.4  
UK (Sept 11) 22.0 9.0 7.5  
Norway 8.6 3.3 3.4  
19
Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment Net Replacement Rates for six family types initial phase of unemployment
2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels 2009, different earnings levels

  67 of AW 67 of AW 67 of AW 67 of AW 67 of AW 67 of AW 100 of AW 100 of AW 100 of AW 100 of AW 100 of AW 100 of AW 150 of AW 150 of AW 150 of AW 150 of AW 150 of AW 150 of AW
No children No children No children 2 children 2 children 2 children No children No children No children 2 children 2 children 2 children No children No children No children 2 children 2 children 2 children
Single person married couple married couple Lone parent married couple married couple Single person married couple married couple Lone parent married couple married couple Single person married couple married couple Lone parent married couple married couple
Single person One-earner Two-earner Lone parent One-earner Two-earner Single person One-earner Two-earner Lone parent One-earner Two-earner Single person One-earner Two-earner Lone parent One-earner Two-earner
             
Denmark 83 85 91 89 88 93 60 63 74 75 72 77 46 48 61 64 59 64
Finland 64 75 78 85 83 83 52 60 72 74 72 76 44 47 63 60 57 67
Iceland 77 72 89 84 77 91 77 80 86 83 83 88 56 61 71 65 67 74
Ireland 46 72 73 69 76 77 33 52 61 60 63 65 25 39 50 48 49 55
Norway 67 69 84 88 89 86 65 67 80 87 71 82 47 49 65 65 52 67
Sweden 69 69 85 83 80 86 48 48 69 65 58 71 36 36 58 51 44 60
United Kingdom 55 66 59 72 77 69 38 46 49 64 71 58 26 32 39 46 51 47
20
TU Membership Density (2008)
over 90 in Finland 8089 in Belgium and
Sweden 7079 in Denmark and Norway 6069 in
Italy 5059 in Cyprus, Luxembourg and
Malta 4049 in Romania 3039 in Austria,
Ireland and Slovenia 2029 in Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the
Netherlands, Portugal and the UK 1019 in
Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Spain below 10 in
Estonia and Lithuania. Higher among women than
among men in half of the 20 countries examined
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden
21
Gender equality

• Proportion in Parliament
• Proportion on Company Boards
• CEOs
• Childcare
• Etc.

22
The Global Gender Gap Index 2010 rankings
Comparisons with 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006
2010 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006
Country rank score rank score rank score rank score rank score

Iceland 1 0.8496 1 0.8276 4 0.7999 4 0.7836 4 0.7813
Norway 2 0.8404 3 0.8227 1 0.8239 2 0.8059 2 0.7994
Finland 3 0.8260 2 0.8252 2 0.8195 3 0.8044 3 0.7958
Sweden 4 0.8024 4 0.8139 3 0.8139 1 0.8146 1 0.8133
Ireland 6 0.7773 8 0.7597 8 0.7518 9 0.7457 10 0.7335
Denmark 7 0.7719 7 0.7628 7 0.7538 8 0.7519 8 0.7462
United Kingdom 15 0.7460 15 0.7402 13 0.7366 11 0.7441 9 0.7365
23
Detailed rankings, 2010
Overall Overall Economic Participation and Opportunity Economic Participation and Opportunity Educational Attainment Educational Attainment Health and Survival Health and Survival Political Empowerment Political Empowerment
Country Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score
Iceland 1 0.8496 18 0.7540 1 1.0000 96 0.9696 1 0.6748
Norway 2 0.8404 3 0.8306 1 1.0000 91 0.9697 3 0.5614
Finland 3 0.8260 16 0.7566 28 0.9993 1 0.9796 2 0.5686
Sweden 4 0.8024 11 0.7695 41 0.9964 80 0.9729 4 0.4706
Ireland 6 0.7773 25 0.7409 1 1.0000 89 0.9700 7 0.3985
Denmark 7 0.7719 23 0.7438 1 1.0000 68 0.9743 10 0.3695
United Kingdom 15 0.7460 34 0.7210 1 1.0000 90 0.9698 22 0.2933
24
Press Freedom Index 2011/2012, Reporters without
Borders
Rank Country Score Score
1 Finland -10,00  
1 Norway -10,00  
6 Iceland -7,00  
 
10 Denmark -5,67  
12 Sweden -5,50  
15 Ireland -4,00  
 
28 United Kingdom 2,00  
http//en.rsf.org/spip.php?pageclassementid_rubr
ique1043
25
Stronger?
26
The Global Competitiveness Index 20112012
rankings and 20102011 comparisons
Country/Economy Rank/142 Score GCI 2011 2012 rank among 2010 countries GCI 20102011 rank
Switzerland 1 5.74 1 1
Singapore 2 5.63 2 3
Sweden 3 5.61 3 2
Finland 4 5.47 4 7
Denmark 8 5.40 8 9
UnitedKingdom 10 5.39 10 12
Norway 16 5.18 16 14
Ireland 29 4.77 29 29
Iceland 30 4.75 30 31
World Economic Forum (2011) The Global
Competitiveness Report 2011-2012,
http//www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-1
2.pdf
27
Entrepreneurial activity rates -Scotland, UK, Arc
of Prosperity countries, 2000 to 2007
TEA index 2007 Average annual TEA rate Scotland as of average TEA rate
Scotland 4.6 4.8
United Kingdom 5.5 5.9 81

Arc of Prosperity countries Arc of Prosperity countries
Finland 6.9 5.7 85
Denmark 5.4 5.8 83
Norway 6.5 8.0 60
Ireland 8.2 8.8 55
Iceland 12.5 11.8 41
Sweden 4.2 4.4 110
28
RD investments by ICT Scoreboard firms per
country of registered headquarters in theEU, in
millions of (2005-2008)
29
ICT priority patent applications by EU Member
State, 2000 and 2007
ICT patent Applications ICT patent Applications ICT Patent Applications /milllion inhab. ICT Patent Applications /milllion inhab. ICT Patent Applications/GDP (billion euro) ICT Patent Applications/GDP (billion euro)
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007
DE 7971 Finland 136 Finland 4.03
FR 3030 DE 97 DE 3.28
UK 1809 Sweden 62 Sweden 1.69
Finland 723 AT 52 FR 1.60
Sweden 571 FR 49 AT 1.58
NL 497 IE 36 BG 1.35
AT 430 NL 30 SI 1.06
IT 350 UK 30 CZ 0.91
ES 318 Denmark 29 EE 0.89
BE 236 BE 22 UK 0.88
30
Number of ICT and non-ICT patent applications per
million inhabitants, by EU MemberState, 2007
31
EU Member States innovation performance
Innovation leaders Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Sweden all show a performance well above that of
the EU27 average
32
Happiness and quality of life?
33
Happiness
Once again, Norwegians rank among the happiest
people in the world, behind only their fellow
Nordic neighbours in Denmark and Finland. The
latest Gallup World Poll indicates that the
Nordic countries, with their social welfare
states and relative affluence, must be doing
something right. Only the people of Iceland were
missing when four out of the five Nordic
countries grabbed the top spots on the Gallup
World Polls list. Sweden ranked just after
Norway in a tie for fourth place . Forbes
Magazine, from OECD report
34
Place
In Norway, also considered by the United Nations
to be the worlds best place to live, fully 69
percent of the population were said to be
thriving while none of the respondents was
suffering. But 31 percent were considered to be
struggling, compared to 30 percent in Sweden,
even though the economy in Sweden is considered
to be weaker than Norways.
35
OECD Better Life Initiative. (2011)
36
Happiest countries in the world OECD plus
economic stability
10. Austria 9. Israel 8. Finland 7.
Switzerland 6. Sweden5. The Netherlands 4.
Australia3. Norway 2. Canada 1. Denmark
37
Human Development Report 2011 - Sustainability
and Equity A Better Future for All Human
Development Index
Human Development Index (HDI) Gross National Income (GNI) per capita Gross National Income (GNI) per capita GNI per capita rank minus HDI rank GNI per capita rank minus HDI rank Nonincome HDI
HDI rank Value (Constant 2005 PPP) (Constant 2005 PPP) Value
      2011   2011 2011   2011 2011   2011

1 Norway 0.943 47,557 6 0.975
7 Ireland 0.908 29,322 19 0.959
10 Sweden 0.904 35,837 4 0.936
14 Iceland 0.898 29,354 11 0.943
16 Denmark 0.895 34,347 3 0.926
22 Finland 0.882 32,438 0 0.911
28 United Kingdom 0.863 33,296 -7 0.879
38
Resilient and robust?
39
Legatum Prosperity Index (2011)
1 Norway
2 Denmark
5 Sweden
7 Finland
11 Ireland
12 Iceland
13 United Kingdom
40
The Road to a Better Place?

• Can we join this group that is move into the
  high income, high wealth, sustainable, low
  inequality, high opportunity, coherent economy
  and society?

41
Traffic problems the Road
42
The Arc of Prosperitybecomes

• the arc of insolvency
• the arc of darkness
• the arc of delusion

Only prudent Norway is holding its head above
water. Associated Press Iceland teeters on
the brink of bankruptcy International Herald
Tribune Iceland is all but officially
bankrupt Forbes Iceland teeters on
bankruptcy New York Times Iceland, in
financial collapse...
43
Financial crisis

• Surely small countries cannot cope Nordic
  model(s) not sustainable
• Better together
• Protection
• Support
• Recovery

44
Public Debt ( of GDP) 2010 Country Ranks, By Rank
Rank   Country Value  
10   Iceland 100.6  
22   United Kingdom 68.5  
27   Ireland 63.7  
29   Norway 60.2  
40   World 53.6  
53   Finland 46.6  
60   Sweden 43.2  
67   Denmark 38.1  
45
List of countries by public debt (2011)
Public debt as GDP Public debt as GDP
(CIA and Eurostat) (IMF)
Sweden 39.7 39.70
Denmark 43.7 43.65
Finland 48.3 48.39
Norway 48.9 55.42
World 59.3 79.25
United Kingdom 79.9 75.50
European Union 82.3 80.00
Ireland 94.9 94.92
Iceland 126.1 92.37
46
Banking crises
IMF Report During the past twenty years we have
witnessed several major crises throughout the
financial world. The IMF study of banking crises
around the world reveals that 133 countries
experienced significant banking sector problems
at some stage during the years 1980-1995. The
amount of public expenditure needed for resolving
the crises and reviving banking sector activity
has been remarkable in all countries. According
to the above-mentioned IMF study, in some 25 of
the crises, the costs exceeded 10 of GNP. The
figures from the Nordic countries show that
taxpayers' costs have ranged from 3 (Norway) to
8 (Finland) of GNP. Considering that not only
the government budget but the whole economy
suffers from such a crisis, it is understandable
that the countries around the world, together
with international organisations, have joined
forces to determine the most efficient ways to
avoid systemic financial crises.
47
The arc of prosperity become the arc of
insolvency
Sweden and Norway had banking crises in the early
Nineties. The Scandinavian banks collapsed after
... a credit and property bubble in the 1980s
that burst just like ours. The Norwegian
government moved quickly, driving down the shares
of the banks to zero, nationalising many and
taking an equity stake in the rest. It
restructured and recapitalised the banks and then
sold them off, so that the Norwegian taxpayers
didnt lose and the bankers didnt get bailed
out. http//iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2008/10/
arc-of-prosperity-become-arc-of.html
48
Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way
A banking system in crisis after the collapse of
a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A
market-oriented government struggling to stem the
panic. . banking system was, for all practical
purposes, insolvent. but 3 years later, Sweden
back on track But the final cost to Sweden
ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P.
Some officials say they believe it was closer to
zero, with more returns to come. However,
the reforms enacted during the 1990s seem to have
created a model in which extensive welfare
benefits can be maintained in a global
economy. NY Times
49
A better fiscal way?
50
GDP, government deficit/surplus and debt in the EU (in national currencies) GDP, government deficit/surplus and debt in the EU (in national currencies) 2007 2008 2009 2010
Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark
Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) 4.8 3.2 -2.7 -2.6
Government expenditure ( of GDP) 50.8 51.9 58.4 58.5
Government revenue ( of GDP) 55.6 55.2 55.6 55.7
Government debt ( of GDP) Government debt ( of GDP) 27.5 34.5 41.8 43.7
Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland
Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) 0.1 -7.3 -14.2 -31.3
Government expenditure ( of GDP) 36.6 42.8 48.9 66.8
Government revenue ( of GDP) 36.7 35.5 34.7 35.5
Government debt ( of GDP) Government debt ( of GDP) 24.9 44.3 65.2 94.9
Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland
Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) 5.3 4.3 -2.5 -2.5
Government expenditure ( of GDP) 47.4 49.3 55.9 55.3
Government revenue ( of GDP) 52.7 53.6 53.2 52.5
Government debt ( of GDP) Government debt ( of GDP) 35.2 33.9 43.3 48.3
Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden
Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) 3.6 2.2 -0.7 0.2
Government expenditure ( of GDP) 51.0 51.7 55.0 52.9
Government revenue ( of GDP) 54.5 53.9 54.1 52.8
Government debt ( of GDP) Government debt ( of GDP) 40.2 38.8 42.7 39.7
United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) Government deficit (-) / surplus () ( of GDP) -2.7 -5.0 -11.5 -10.3
Government expenditure ( of GDP) 43.9 47.9 51.4 50.4
Government revenue ( of GDP) 41.1 42.9 40.1 40.3
Government debt ( of GDP) Government debt ( of GDP) 44.4 54.8 69.6 79.9
51
Fiscal Stability and Responsibility
Government Expenditure and Revenue as of GDP 2007 2010
DENMARK DENMARK DENMARK
Government expenditure 50.8 58.5
Government revenue 55.6 55.7
IRELAND IRELAND IRELAND
Government expenditure 36.6 66.8
Government revenue 36.7 35.5
FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND
Government expenditure 47.4 55.3
Government revenue 52.7 52.5
SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN
Government expenditure 51.0 52.9
Government revenue 54.5 52.8
UNITED KINGDOM UNITED KINGDOM UNITED KINGDOM
Government expenditure 43.9 50.4
Government revenue 41.1 40.3
52
Personal taxation
53
Advanced European Countries Main Macroeconomic
Indicators, 200912 (Percent) IMF
Current Account Balance to GDP Current Account Balance to GDP Current Account Balance to GDP Current Account Balance to GDP General Government Overall Balance to GDP General Government Overall Balance to GDP General Government Overall Balance to GDP General Government Overall Balance to GDP
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012
Advanced European Economies 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 -6.4 -6.0 -4.3 -3.3
Euro area -0.3 -0.4 0.1 0.4 -6.3 -6.0 -4.1 -3.1
Finland 2.3 3.1 2.5 2.5 -2.8 -2.8 -1.0 0.3
Ireland -2.9 0.5 1.8 1.9 -14.2 -32.0 -10.3 -8.6
Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies Other EU advanced economies
Denmark 3.8 5.1 6.4 6.4 -2.8 -2.9 -3.0 -3.0
Sweden 7.0 6.3 5.8 5.3 -0.9 -0.3 0.8 1.3
United Kingdom -1.7 -3.2 -2.7 -2.3 -10.3 -10.2 -8.5 -7.0
Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies Non-EU advanced economies
Iceland -11.7 -10.2 1.9 3.2 -8.6 -5.4 -4.1 -2.3
Norway 12.9 12.4 14.0 12.8 10.6 10.9 12.0 11.2
Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum Memorandum
European Union -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 -6.8 -6.5 -4.6 -3.6
54
Total tax revenue as percentage of GDP, 2009,
ranked by tax to GDP ratios

55
Summary
56
View from Wall Street
The happiest countries seem to be places where
there is a good balance of work and leisure time.
Not all nations can afford to keep unemployment
low through government subsidies. Not all
countries can afford to provide universal medical
coverage. Not all countries can afford to educate
almost all of their children, which in turn
supports extremely high literacy rates and builds
a population of skilled workers. 24/7 Wall St
57
Together or not
The prime minister said there are countries in
Europe, small countries that make it on their
own, but ... we are better off X we are
stronger X we're fairer X we're
richer X
58
Impacts of poverty

• poor in a rich country intensely stressful
• made worse by stigmatisation both in the media
  and as result of political rhetoric.
• Pressures to consume stem from a culture that
  elevates passions and image above relationships,
  community contribution, and care for others and
  the environment
• There must be a better way

59
Routes out of poverty

• Possible to overcome poverty, 6th richest gt
  adequate resources. Need allocation in more
  effective and sustainable way.
• Greater role for businesses paying taxes, ?
  employment of those further from the labour
  market, offering decent jobs in sustainable
  industries.
• Higher expectation on businesses to deliver
  social sustainability, particularly in return for
  the array of state support that businesses
  receive.

60
Social protection and equality

• social protection measures (education, NMW and
  social safety nets) strong mechanisms to increase
  equality.
• they are a collective good - all depend on and
  all benefit, cf. financial drain.
• funded fairly by progressive taxation.
• Collective ownership, management gt genuine
  participation in all economic activity sharing
  ownership, work, and rewards

61
Can we move from poverty - prosperity

• new prosperity, a shared future where we are
  simply better at sharing, where there are fewer
  extremes of money and wealth, esteem and status,
  power and position.
• community-led economy focused on quality and
  distribution of growth, where the assets of
  communities and the value of individuals are
  utilised and enhanced to promote social and
  environmental sustainability.

62
Size matters
Iceland's Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson
has told the BBC that his country's size has been
crucial in the move towards recovery "You are
quicker turning a small boat around than a big
ship."