Notes on the Front

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU

The IMF Rules OK: The Recession Diaries June 25th

Recession 174 Great. Coming home from a few days break and there’s the IMF, holding open the cell door. The projections are worrying enough, though hardly new.  Still, to be reminded one more time that the economy is crashing through the double-digit barrier – it doesn’t really perk up your day. The real worry is the prescription, the ‘medicine’ they propose. This will be a real fillip for the government, the orthodoxy, the Right. For the IMF is proposing nothing less than a massive hollowing out of the economy and public realm. With international blessing, Fianna Fail will up the ‘cut’ stakes while the Left and the trade union movement is in danger of marking time.

Ah, the IMF; its track record of interventions doesn’t fill one with warm, fuzzy feelings. Just ask Argentina or Kenya or most other countries that have had to slash n’ burn their economies to get a ‘bailout’ (never mind the dictators that the IMF supported – dictators that ran parallel slash n’ burn policies against their own populations). And, so, the IMF and Ireland:

‘. . . the execution of their ambitious consolidation plan (i.e. the Government’s expenditure cuts) will require a continuing commitment to address sensitive expenditures, including the public wage bill and the scope of social welfare programs. . . To bear fruit these efforts will require determined execution over several years.’

What a future. First, they propose that ‘social welfare expenditures must better target the vulnerable’. This is code for wide-scale means testing. Indeed, the IMF welcomed the Government’s commitment to move away from universalism. This is a bit of a hoot.

Ireland has the least amount of universal payments in the EU – by a wide margin. Whereas, only 11% of all social benefits are means-tested in the EU, Ireland leads the means testing league at nearly 25% (compare this to Denmark and Sweden where only 3% of benefits are subjected to means testing). Moving away from universalism? We’re already there.

While Child Benefit is usually held up as the main ‘universal’ payment – one to be targeted through means testing or taxation – there is another target: social insurance. We can expect the Government to dilute the insurance principle and move towards means-testing Jobseekers’ Benefit, Disability Benefit, etc.

IMF Secondly, the IMF calls for further public sector wage cuts and/or cuts in employment. Surprise, surprise. The IMF is deeply, deeply concerned that public sector employment grew from just under 14% of total employment, to just under 16% in 2008. Now, you might not think this sounds like much. That’s because it isn’t. But it’s enough to get the IMF worked up – never mind that Irish public sector pay costs lag behind most other countries as a proportion of GDP; never mind that Irish employment of civil servants is the fourth lowest out of 26 OECD countries (civil servants as a percentage of total employment).  New report – same ol' scapegoats.

The IMF doesn’t even bother assessing the negative impact (i.e. multipliers) of large-scale cuts in wages, Government consumption/investment, social welfare, etc. on the economy. Instead, they offer us a faith-based approach to fiscal correction; that somehow hollowing out the economy will lead to growth and consumption and investment. How? They never quite say. They focus on one thing and one thing only: the deficit. And what an accountancy-inspired focus it is.

They are proposing the Government – if it is to reach fiscal nirvana – will have to cut current public expenditure by over 23% by 2014. To give you a snapshot idea of what this means, it calls for the Government to cut expenditure by over €12 billion in 2009 terms. You could abolish the Department of Education and still fall well short of the intended target.

In one respect, this is all nothing new. We’ve been feeding off a steady diet of cuts and contraction since this recession gig got hopping. So what’s one more ‘expert’ commentary? Little in itself. It’s the impact on an alternative dialogue, though, that makes one depressed.

ICTU is otherwise engaged, trying to find some traction in talks with the Government to reach an agreement that will, regardless of minimalist measures to protect jobs and pensions, reflect the broad thrust of the IMF.

Labour’s reaction to the IMF report was to use its analysis to bash the Government over past mistakes. This is a fine as far as it goes but the fact is that even the dogs in the street are familiar with the arguments over the property bubble. What the Left has failed to do to date is mount a fundamental challenge to the very premises of the IMF report and the orthodoxy’s prescriptions; namely, the cuts agenda. The Dail debate can give the Left an opportunity to correct this. Let's hope the jump in with both feet. 

For without that fundamental critique, we allow the IMF to rule us by default, by setting the mood music, by establishing the most rigid of parameters. We are trapped, prisoners. We get to choose our warders but we don’t get to leave. We get to decorate our cells but we must pay respect to the walls. We get the semblance of choice but really, there is only one choice.

The IMF’s choice. A logical end to a desultory debate.

5 responses to “The IMF Rules OK: The Recession Diaries June 25th”

  1. Barry Avatar

    Michael,
    Surely the issue is not so much what percentage of gdp public sector wages are but the relative difference between them and the private sector?
    Plus those figures are ancient.

    Like

  2. dealga Avatar

    Hi,
    Just to follow Barry’s question, this post draws a number of comparisons but, to be honest, all I could think was ‘so what’?
    “Only 11% of all social benefits are means-tested in the EU, Ireland leads the means testing league at nearly 25% (compare this to Denmark and Sweden where only 3% of benefits are subjected to means testing.”
    You automatically assume that’s a bad thing, obviously. Maybe you have explained why elsewhere, but maybe we’re in the right, maybe we’re being sensible. I’ve been to Copenhagen – I didn’t like balking at buying a second cup of coffee… Surely everything should be means tested as long as the means testing is fair. I’ve heard the argument that the inefficiency of doing that costs as much (or more) than it saves but, if true, it’s still a poor reason to not require people to show they require support from their fellow citizens.
    “Employment of civil servants is the fourth lowest out of 26 OECD countries.”
    Again so what? Why are we in the wrong? What does employing more people guarantee you? Furthermore you used percentage figures. But given that total employment rose considerably in the bubble years then the “just under 14% of total employment, to just under 16% in 2008” is a considerable rise in headcount, no? Why did a massive jump in people employed in the construction industry, for example, automatically require an equivalent (or greater) rise in the number of civil servants?
    Where’s the evidence that all those extra civil servants in other countries are needed, are doing jobs that need to be done and need to be done by the State? Are doing those jobs efficiently? Are not paralysed by restrictive work practices?

    Like

  3. WorldbyStorm Avatar
    WorldbyStorm

    dealga, a good question in the sense of worth asking in terms of why not means test? However there’s strong evidence in the case of child benefit that means testing it provides the least optimal outcomes in dealing with child poverty, which I’ve discussed on the CLR at http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/budget-day-so-lets-see-if-they-slim-state-provision-because-after-all-the-market-has-been-such-a-success/
    If you’re asking should child benefit be taxed, well then I’m much more open to persuasion. And so with all other benefits.
    I think that beyond efficiencies and optimisation arguments there’s the necessity for all citizens to understand that social solidarity incurs both responsibilities (taxation, etc) and benefits (whatever they may be at whatever point one is at).
    I think the issue re employment of civil servants is also an interesting one but worth noting that the OECD itself felt that the number we had was too low for our population. If we’re coming 4th lowest in a field of 26 it’s hard to believe that somehow we’re squeezing out a more efficient delivery of services. That’s certainly not my experience and if we’re talking about the broader Public Service the gaps in service are considerable even on a day to day basis.

    Like

  4. Michael Taft Avatar

    Barry, thanks for the comment. Yes, the figures lag – but that is a problem with international comparisons in so many areas, especially sub-categories of pay. And, yes, the difference between public and private sector pay is an issue. However, the point I was making here is that, from a comparative perspective, our public sector pay bill isn’t all that high. In fact, it’s relatively low – even though this particular fact hasn’t emerged in the debate to date.
    dealga, those are pertinent questions. Re: means-testing, yes, it’s not a good thing (in my opinion, of course). It is bureacratic and inefficient, setting up numerouse unemployment and income traps (which, of course, only affect those on the lowest incomes). Those countries with well-developed social protection systems don’t rely anywhere near to the same extent as we do. Of course, no system can do away with means-testing altogther. There are circumstances that require such interventions. The trick is to limit these as much as possible. However, the question you pose is one that I will try to answer in a subsequent post – for creating an economically and sociall efficient social protection system is absolutely key to raising our productivity, living standards and our quality of life.
    I would also refer you to the NCC report on competitiveness – they produce, admittedly tentative, data that suggests Irish public sector productivity is one of the highest in the EU. Again, not something that gets mentioned much in the current debate. I would also point out that those countries with a strong (and large) public sector as well as a strong social protection system, are some of the most competitive economies in the world. That’s because a strong public realm is not an obstacle to growth and competitiveness but rather an indispensable ingredient.
    The NCC report can be found here: http://www.forfas.ie/media/ncc090108_acr_2008.pdf

    Like

  5. WorldbyStorm Avatar
    WorldbyStorm

    Sorry, that wasn’t meant to pre-empt Michael’s comment. I wrote it in a hurry and should have made that clear.

    Like

Leave a reply to Barry Cancel reply

Navigation

About

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU