Industrial change and globalisation: Challenges for the European Social Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide1 l.jpg
Download
1 / 50

Industrial change and globalisation: Challenges for the European Social Model. Economic growth scoreboard. Afghanistan29.0% Turkmenistan23.1% Equatorial Guinea20.0% Chad15.0% Isle of Man13.5% Azerbaijan11.2% Liechtenstein11.0% Faeroe Islands10.0% Armenia9.9%

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Industrial change and globalisation: Challenges for the European Social Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Industrial change and globalisation:

Challenges for the European Social Model


Slide2 l.jpg

Economic growth scoreboard

Afghanistan29.0%

Turkmenistan23.1%

Equatorial Guinea20.0%

Chad15.0%

Isle of Man13.5%

Azerbaijan11.2%

Liechtenstein11.0%

Faeroe Islands10.0%

Armenia9.9%

Ukraine9.4%

Kazakhstan9.2%

China9.1%

Lithuania9.0%

Argentina8.7%

Qatar8.5%

India8.3%

Bhutan7.7%

San Marino7.5%

Algeria7.4%

Latvia7.4%

Russia7.3%

Botswana7.2%

Vietnam7.2%

Cook Islands7.1%

Nigeria7.1%

Albania7.0%

Tajikistan7.0%

Mozambique7.0%

CIA: World Fact Book 2003-04


Slide3 l.jpg

Balance of payments scoreboard (Billion USD)

Hong Kong17,4

France13,8

Malaysia13,4

United Arab Emirates12,5

South Korea12,3

Netherlands12,1

Belgium10,7

Finland10,3

Venezuela9,7

…….

United Kingdom-7,6

USA-541,8

Japan135,9

Germany57,2

Switzerland36,0

Russia35,9

China31,2

Norway29,3

Taiwan28,6

Singapore26,2

Saudi Arabia22,2

Sweden19,6

Canada18,6


Slide4 l.jpg

%

US FDI - % of total – (2004: 1st + 2nd Q)

%

US Direct investment abroad. US Dep. of Commerce.


Slide5 l.jpg

UK Foreign Direct Investment - % of total

%

Direct investment abroad. UK National Statistics


Slide6 l.jpg

Financially viable


Slide7 l.jpg

EU - US

GDP Growth

Unemployment

Government budget

Balance of Payments


Slide8 l.jpg

US current account 1889 – 2004 - % of GDP

Source: OECD Economic Outlook no. 76


Slide9 l.jpg

World Economic Forum scoreboard 2004

  • GLOBAL:

  • Finland

  • USA

  • Sweden

  • Taiwan

  • Denmark

  • Norway

  • Singapore

  • Switzerland

  • Japan

  • Iceland

  • UK

  • Netherlands

  • Germany

  • Australia

  • Canada

  • EU:

  • Finland

  • Sweden

  • Denmark

  • UK

  • Netherlands

  • Germany

  • Austria

  • Estonia

  • Spain

  • Portugal

  • Belgium

  • Luxembourg

  • France

  • Ireland

  • Malta

16. Slovenia

17. Lithuania

18. Greece

19. Cyprus

20. Hungary

21. Czech Republic

22. Slovakia

23. Latvia

24. Italy

25. Poland

Based on broad concept. Results very similar to Lisbon benchmarking


Slide10 l.jpg

Economic policies

The introduction of the Euro put focus on Structural Policies

Lisbon was an answer

Did politicians listen?

Monetary Policy

Fiscal Policy

Structural Policies


Slide11 l.jpg

The Lisbon process – the target

Adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon Spring 2000:

To make Europe the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, based on social cohesion and environmental sustainability

Progress to be measured by the Open Method of Coordination: Benchmarking and adoption of best practices

Sustainability issues added one year later in Gothenburg


Slide12 l.jpg

The Lisbon process

Primarily inspired by the growth, jobs and productivity gap to US

A ten-year plan to restore European Competitiveness

‘Soft’ rather than ‘hard’ law (different from Internal Market)

Open method of Coordination


Slide13 l.jpg

There is a European Economic and Social Model

and it is characterised by large public sector, focus on welfare state and emphasis on the environment.

Taxes as % of GDP:

Japan: 26%

USA: 25%

China: 16%

EU-15: 40%

India: 17%


Slide14 l.jpg

European Economic and Social sub models

Northern

Anglo-Saxon

Eastern?

Continental

Southern


Slide15 l.jpg

European Economic and Social sub models

Similarities: Hands-off approach to markets

Differences: Size of welfare state

Northern

Anglo-Saxon

Similarities: Large welfare sector

Differences: Approach to market

OECD: Countries with relatively liberal attitude to product market regulation:

UK, Ireland, Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands.

Countries with relatively restrictive attitudes:

Germany, Spain, France, Czech Rep., Italy, Hungary

OECD: Product Market Regulation 1998-2003. February 2005

Continental


Slide16 l.jpg

European Economic and Social sub models

Similarities: Hands-off approach to markets

Differences: Size of welfare state

Northern

Anglo-Saxon

Similarities: Large welfare sector

Differences: Approach to market

Nordic model combines a liberal approach to markets with high quality welfare sector and provides ‘flexicurity’

Continental


Slide17 l.jpg

Government budgets in Nordic and Anglo-Saxon models


Slide18 l.jpg

Current accounts in Nordic and Anglo-Saxon models


Slide19 l.jpg

Re-introduction of Structural Policies

Global competition requires flexibility and a higher knowledge base

European population requires confidence and security

Target: Combining flexibility and security = Flexicurity


Slide20 l.jpg

Does a big state prevent competitiveness?

Apparently not. This issue is not quantity but quality.


Slide21 l.jpg

Public sector and competitiveness

WEF score

6

Fin

Swe

Den

UK

5

Spa

Ger

Bel

Fra

Ita

4

Tax of GDP

30%

40%

50%


Slide22 l.jpg

Public sector and competitiveness

  • Public sector reforms are essential for competitiveness agenda:

  • Value for money

  • Combat corruption

  • Modernisation (eGovernment)

  • Good infrastructures

  • From passive to active


Slide23 l.jpg

Globalisation is working

€30

€85

Consumers get richer, but can we adapt and create new, sustainable jobs?


Slide24 l.jpg

From the industrial society to today

IT

Logistics - distribution

Production

Design

R&D


Slide25 l.jpg

Outsourcing – and insourcing

In some countries the debate focusess only on outsourcing

In others a more balanced debate on outsourcing and insourcing

Globalisation is not just about loosing, also winning

The negative debate shows fear for lack of competitvness and thus lack of strucutral reform


Slide26 l.jpg

Attitudes towards globalisation in Europe

Source: IMD survey 2004. Index 0-10.


Slide27 l.jpg

Need for reform

Reforms are at least needed in :

labour market and social welfare

Innovation, entrepreneurship and market


Slide28 l.jpg

Labour market and social welfare

Life cycles are shorter and shorter

Need for constant knowledge upgrade

Calls for flexible labour market with security and Active Labour Market Policy

Ageing population requires life-long learning and longer working life


Slide29 l.jpg

Innovation entrepreneurship and the markets

Europe must be better to grow SME’s

Innovation must be brought to the markets – closer links between research and real life

Europe’s risk culture underdeveloped


Slide30 l.jpg

EU budget

EU budget can in general contribute in a limited way to development of European competitiveness. Budget is only 1% of GDP – and ½ is for CAP

Coordination of national policies would be stronger

Focus and link to overall targets could help, but

the debate is now on marginal issues on overall size and fight for national corners


Slide31 l.jpg

Some examples of Lisbon benchmarking


Slide32 l.jpg

GDP per Capita – 2005 Index. EU-15 = 100. PPS

US: 158,8 Japan: 118,9


Slide33 l.jpg

GDP per Capita – 2005Index. EU-15 = 100. PPS


Slide34 l.jpg

GDP growth rate – 2005Percentage change over previous year

US: 3,0 Japan: 2,1


Slide35 l.jpg

%

Total unemployment rate -2004 (%)

USA: 5,5


Slide36 l.jpg

%

Labour productivity per person employed 2005

GDP in PPS per person employed relative to EU-25 = 100


Slide37 l.jpg

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D % of GDP - 2003

%

US: 1.91 – Canada: 2.67 – Japan: 3.12


Slide38 l.jpg

Spending on Human Resources Spending on education as % of GDP

%

US: 5,35 – Japan: 3.60


Slide39 l.jpg

Life-long learning % of population 25-64 participating in education and training

%


Slide40 l.jpg

%

Internet penetration in EU households - 2004


Slide41 l.jpg

%

Broadband penetration rate – 2004

Number of broadband lines in % of population


Slide42 l.jpg

%

E-government on-line availability 2003


Slide43 l.jpg

Patent applications to European Patent Office

Per 1 million inhabitants - 2002


Slide44 l.jpg

ICT Expenditure 2004

As % of GDP

US: 5,5 – Japan: 3,5


Slide45 l.jpg

Energy intensity of the economy Consumption of energy divided by GDP. Kg of oil equivalent per 1000 Euro. 2002


Slide46 l.jpg

Level of corruption

US: 7.5 – Canada: 8.5

Transparency International 2003


Slide47 l.jpg

Flexibility of business environment

Composite index. Danish Industry


Slide48 l.jpg

Labour market regulation

IMD survey-2004


Slide49 l.jpg

Flexibility and agility

IMD survey, 2004


Slide50 l.jpg

Open method of coordination

Are models transferable:

No, but solutions are to a large extent

Why did France have to go through the No vote to discover the Nordic Model?

OMC may now work, but not because of EU or Lisbon, but because of desperate search for models that work!


  • Login