Transcript SOCIAAL KAPITAAL EN WELVAART

SOCIAAL KAPITAAL EN
WELVAART
Prof. Em. Wim Moesen
Centrum voor Economische Studiën
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Seniorenuniversiteit UHasselt
21 september 2009
INHOUD
1.
SOCIAAL KAPITAAL EN ECONOMISCHE WELVAART
• Transmissiemechanisme
2.
METEN EN VALIDEREN
• Empirische bevindingen
3.
STERKTEN- ZWAKTENANALYSE
• Beleidsconclusies
SOCIAAL KAPITAAL
FORMELE INSTELLINGEN
(wetten, regels, organisaties…)
INFORMELE INSTELLINGEN
(normen, conventies, taboes…)
CULTURELE WAARDEN
WELVAART
ECONOMISCHE PERFORMANTIE
VERTROUWEN
SOCIAAL KAPITAAL
TRANSMISSIEMECHANISME?
Macro-economische
performanties
Vertrouwen
•
•
Vermindert transactiekosten
Verhoogt productiviteit
Francis FUKAYAMA (1995)
“Trust: the social virtues and economic prosperity”
BENADERING VAN DE TRANSACTIEKOSTEN
• Douglas NORTH (1993)
• Oliver WILLIAMSON (1975, 1979, 1985)
TRUST AND RETURNED WALLETS
MAATSCHAPPELIJK KAPITAAL EN
VERTROUWEN
Maatschappelijk kapitaal
= cultuur van de maatschappij
Met - formele beperkingen
grondwet, wetten,…
- informele beperkingen
morele waarden, attitudes,…
Beïnvloedt vertrouwen in de maatschappij
Vertrouwen in de publieke sector
Beïnvloedt economische performantie
METEN EN VALIDEREN
•
DATA ECONOMISCHE PERFORMANTIE
•
DATA CULTURELE WAARDEN
•
BEVINDINGEN
DE CONSTRUCTIE VAN EEN COMPOSIETINDEX VOOR DE METING VAN
PERFORMANTIE
•
SCOPE: WELKE INDICATOREN?
•
NORMALISERING: HOE HERSCHALEN?
•
AGGREGATIE: WELKE WEGING?
SYNTHETISCHE INDICATOR VAN MACROECONOMSICHE PERFORMANTIE
TINBERGEN
REELE GROEI
LOPENDE REKENING
BETALINGSBALANS
WERKLOOSHEID
INFLATIE
VERTROUWEN IN PUBLIEKE SECTOR &
ECONOMISCHE PERFORMANTIE
Meetinstrumenten: economische performantie
Groei BBP
4 factoren
Inflatie
Wekloosheidsgraad
Saldo op lopende rekening
2 maatstaven
Simep
Limep
Ongewogen
Gewogen
Simep 4 / Limep 4
2 families
Simep 3 / Limep 3
Met saldo
Lopende rekening
zonder saldo
Lopende rekening
DATA CULTURELE WAARDEN
Twee indicatoren:
(1) Vertrouwen in publieke sector: synthetische maatstaf
5 ingrediënten
Favoritisme
Onafhankelijkheid rechterlijke macht
Corruptie
Regeringsverbintenissen
Vertrouwen in eerlijkheid van politici
(2) Werkethiek (arbeidsmotivatie, loyauteit,…)
BEVINDINGEN: REGRESSIERESULTATEN
R2
Afhankelijke
Variabele
Intercept
(Stand. Dev.)
Werkethiek
(Stand. Dev.)
SIMEP 4
-0.761
(0.288)
+0.162
(0.046)
Vertrouwen
in
Publieke
sector
(Stand. Dev.)
+0.069
(0.031)
LIMEP 4
-0.801
(0.364)
+0.188
(0.058)
+0.071
(0.039)
0.466
SIMEP 3
-0.625
(0.318)
+0.137
(0.050)
+0.070
(0.034)
0.424
LIMEP 3
-0.699
(0.402)
+0.171
(0.064)
+0.070
(0.043)
0.380
0.525
EMPIRICS: GRAPHICAL
CLASSIFICATIE VAN LANDEN
Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009
What is competitiveness?
The World Competitiveness Report defines
competitiveness as the set of institutions,
policies, and factors that determine the
level of productivity of a country
Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009
Problems when constructing a
Composite Indicator
1. Problem of scope
2. Problem of normalisation
3. Problem fo weighting
The index is composed of 12 pillars measuring
different aspects of an economy’s competitiveness
Basic Requirements
I. Institutions
II. Infrastructure
III. Macroeconomic stability
IV. Health and primary education
Efficiency Enhancers
V. Higher education and training
VI. Goods market efficiency
VII. Labor market efficiency
VIII. Financial market sophistication
IX. Technological readiness
X. Market size
Innovation and sophistication
factors
XI. Business sophistication
XII. Innovation
Key for
factor-driven
economies
Key for
efficiency-driven
economies
Key for
innovation-driven
economies
Survey methodology
- The hard data indicators used in the GCI are
normalized on a 1- to 7- scale
- Official public sources are often insufficient for
painting an accurate picture of a country’s business
operating environment.
-> Executive opinion survey: Soft Data
Executive Opinion Survey
- Survey conducted by Partner Institutes
- Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School exclusively for Belgium
- Overall, 12.297 business leaders were questioned in a
134 national economies
- Average of 90 responses per country
- Belgium received 109 responses!
- Random selection based on sector share in national GDP
Belgium’s Competitiveness Rank: 2001-2008
Growth Competitiveness Index (Old series)
Global Competitiveness Index (New series)
Year (No. Countries Ranked)
2001
(75)
2002
(80)
2003
(101)
2004
(104)
2005
(117)
2006
(125)
2007
(131)
2008
(134)
0
5
Rank
10
15
20
25
30
35
19
20
20
25
25
27
31
33
19
Old Series
New series
The Global competitiveness index - ranking
Scor
Rank
Country
e
Rank last year
Rank
Country
Scor
Rank last year
1
United States
5,74
1
13
Korea, rep.
5,28
11
2
Switzerland
5,61
2
14
Austria
5,23
15
3
Denmark
5,58
3
15
Norway
5.22
16
4
Sweden
5,53
4
16
France
5.22
18
5
Singapore
5,53
7
17
Taiwan, China
5.22
14
6
Finland
5,50
6
18
Australia
5.20
19
7
Germany
5,46
5
19
Belgium
5.14
20
8
Netherlands
5,41
10
20
Iceland
5.05
23
21
Malaysia
5.04
21
9
Japan
5,38
8
22
Ireland
4.99
22
10
Canada
5,37
13
23
Israel
4.97
17
11
Hong Kong SAR
5,33
12
24
New Zealand
4.93
24
12
United Kingdom
5,30
9
25
Luxembourg
4.85
25
Important changes 2008-2009 vs. 2007-2008
Country
Ranking 2008-2009
Ranking 2007-2008
Change
United States
1
1
=
Switzerland
2
2
=
Denmark
3
3
=
Sweden
4
4
=
Singapore
5
7
+2
Germany
7
5
-2
Netherlands
8
10
+2
Japan
9
8
-1
United Kingdom
12
9
-3
France
16
18
+2
Belgium
19
20
+1
Luxembourg
25
25
=
China
30
34
+4
India
50
48
-2
- No changes in top 4, Singapore enters top 5
- France, the UK and the Netherlands were already better ranked than Belgium and are
characterized by major improvements. Germany stays ahead of Belgium.
- Improvements in China whereas India fell to the 50th place
Pillar Rankings higher than our 19th position
Which pillars pushed us forward?
Name
Belgium’s Rank
2008
Belgium’s Rank
2007
Score
Health and primary education
3
13
6.5
Higher education and training
6
11
5.6
Business sophistication
11
12
5,4
Goods market efficiency
12
21
5.2
Innovation
14
16
4.7
Infrastructure
16
15
5.6
Pillar Rankings lower than our 19th position
Which pillars pulled us backward?
Name
Rank 2008
Rank 2007
Score
Financial market sophistication
23
22
5.2
Institutions
21
23
5,2
Technological readiness
23
24
5.0
Market size
25
25
4.8
Macroeconomic stability
60
65
5.1
Labor market efficiency
79
91
4.3
Belgium’s 10 best single items
Pillar
Name
Rank
Health and primary education
Malaria incidence
1
Health and primary education
Quality of primary education
2
Higher education and training
Quality of math and science education
3
Goods market efficiency
Time required to start a business
3
Higher education and training
Quality of educational system
4
Goods market efficiency
No. of procedures required to start a business
4
Higher education and training
Quality of management schools
5
Innovation
Quality of scientific research institutions
5
Business sophistication
Local supplier quality
5
Goods market efficiency
Trade-weighted tariff rate
5
Belgium’s 10 most unfavourable single items
Pillar
Name
Rank
2008
Rank
2007
Goods market efficiency
Extent and effect of taxation
132
130
Labor market efficiency
Non-wage labor costs
128
124
Labor market efficiency
Flexibility of wage determination
121
125
Macroeconomics stability
Government debt
119
113
Labor market efficiency
Hiring and firing practices
117
125
Goods market efficiency
Total tax rate
114
108
Labor market efficiency
Pay and productivity
96
106
Institutions
Burden of government regulation
95
95
Labor market efficiency
Cooperation in labor-employer relations
94
108
Macroeconomics stability
Government surplus/deficit
63
51
Benchmark of Belgium’s 10 most favourable items
Rank
Belgium
Rank
The Netherlands
Rank
France
Rank
Germany
Rank
Luxembourg
Rank
UK
Malaria incidence
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quality of primary education
2
13
8
36
30
28
Quality of math and science
education
3
16
4
44
54
47
Time required to start a business
3
17
9
38
56
24
Quality of educational system
4
13
20
23
41
28
No. of procedures required to
start a business
4
19
9
58
19
19
Quality of management schools
5
10
1
21
86
18
Quality of scientific research
institutions
5
10
16
6
53
7
Local supplier quality
5
6
10
2
33
23
Trade-weighted tariff rate
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name
Benchmark of Belgium’s 10 most unfavourable items
Rank
Belgium
Rank
The Netherlands
Rank
France
Rank
Germany
Rank
Luxembourg
Rank
UK
Extent and effect of
taxation
132
60
99
105
12
81
Non-wage labor costs
128
75
127
80
46
35
Flexibility of wage
determination
121
122
103
131
98
23
Government debt
119
90
106
105
15
77
Hiring and firing practices
117
124
126
130
113
61
Total tax rate
114
64
115
89
35
38
Pay and productivity
96
90
82
51
67
32
Burden of government
regulation
95
81
126
77
27
82
Cooperation in laboremployer relations
94
9
132
27
20
35
Government
surplus/deficit
63
52
95
58
40
105
Name
The most problematic Factors
for doing business in Belgium
- Restrictive labour regulations (19,2 % of responses)
- Tax rates (17,3% of responses)
- Inefficient government bureaucracy (12,2% of responses)
- Tax regulations (11,1% of responses)
- Inadequately educated workforce (9,8% of responses)
VERTROUWEN IN BELGISCHE
OVERHEIDSINSTELLINGEN
Gezondheidszorg
Onderwijs
Sociale zekerheid
82,6
77,9
69,4
Politie
Overheidsadministratie
Parlement
Justitie
55,4
46,1
39,1
36,4
(Bron: European Values Study, 2000)
VERTROUWEN IN INSTELLINGEN (2002)
Onderwijs
Gemeentelijke administratie
Vlaamse Administratie
Gerecht
79,1%
52,5%
40,4%
30,1%
(Bron: Instituut voor de Overheid, Werken aan de Overheid)
TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS
B
DK
EU-15
Justice/National Legal System
36
80
51
Police
57
89
67
Army
56
74
66
Trade Unions
48
52
36
Big Companies
40
50
29
Charitable or voluntary organisations
57
64
59
Eurobarometer 2003
Trust in Belgian institutions
One of the most problematic factors for doing business
in Belgium
Inefficient government bureaucracy
Government effectiveness
Data on Government Effectiveness
→ borrowed from World Bank:
Kaufmann et al., ‘Governance Matters’, (edition 2007)
- Survey data for 212 countries
- Composite indicator
Global competitiveness versus government
effectiveness
5.8
US
Global Competitiveness Index 2007
5.6
CH
SW
FL
D
JP
5.4
5.2
UK
NL
A
Fr
IRL
5
AU
BE
NZ
DK
CA
NO
IS
LU
4.8
ES
4.6
PT
4.4
IT
4.2
EL
4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Government effectiveness 2006
GCI
coefficient
Std.
Error
constant
4.123
0.202
0.000
effectivene
ss
0.627
0.119
0.665
R-squared
0.570
p-value
Government effectiveness and budget size
Global Competitiveness Index
versus budget size
.
5.8
Global Competitiveness Index 2007
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
Budget size 2007
Global Competitiveness Index versus budget
size – bivariate econometrics
5.8
Global Competitiveness Index 2007
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
30.0
35.0
40.0
GCI
45.0
50.0
55.0
coefficient
Std. Error
p-value
constant
4.898
0.571
0.000
budget
size
0.006
0.013
0.665
Rsquared
0.009
60.0
65.0
budget size 2007
Global Competitiveness Index versus budget
size – clusters of countries
.
Global Competitiveness Index 2007
6
CH
5.8
FL
5.6
D
JP US
UK
5.4
AU
5.2
IRL LU
NO
NZ
5
4.8
NL
IS
CA
Fr
A
BE
SW
DK
ES
4.6
PT
IT
4.4
EL
4.2
4
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Budget size 2007
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
Government effectiveness versus budget size
2.5
DK
CH
Government effectiveness 2006
2
IS
CA
AU
IRL
1.5
NZ
NL
UK
LU
US
FL
D
A
NO
SW
BE
JP
Fr
ES
1
PT
EL
0.5
IT
0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
Budget size 2007
effectiveness
coefficient
Std. Error
p-value
constant
0.824
0.667
0.230
budget size
0.018
0.015
0.235
R-squared
0.067
Non-parametric approach
Non-parametric approach
Output
D
FDH best practice frontier
H
F
B
C
G
A
xo, yo
E
Input
Non-parametric approach
Budget size corrected for:
- Small open economy (Dani Rodrick, 1998)
- Small family size
The quality of government
The quality of government is related to
(correlation coefficient)
- The strictness of the budgetary procedures
(12 EU-countries)
0.66
- The trust in other people
(23 OECD-countries)
0.62
- The trust of foreigners
(19 EU-countries)
0.89
CONTENTS OF HAPPINESS
Subjective well-being
+ personality characteristics
+ socio-demographic factors
Human well-being
+ health
+ education
Economic welfare
+ employment
+ inflation
GDP
Regrettables
LIFE SATISFACTION (1999-2000)
RUUD VEENHOVEN, TILBURG UNIVERSITY
CORRELATIONS WITH
Control of corruption
Rule of law
Government effectiveness (World Bank)
Political voice and accountability
Membership voluntary organisations
Health expenditures per capita
Trust in official institutions
Trust in people
.85
.85
.83
.78
.63
.60
.55
.54