FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So comparing one country with 15 independent countries is not comparing apples with oranges?
The difference here is what exactly?

Reduced opportunities for cherry-picking. Examples of cherry-picking in this thread would include nimh singling out West Germany because East Germany is ideolgically inconvenient for nimh and singling out the Netherlands because they are ideologically convenient.

applied to [..] East Germany, the model has boosted the unemployment rate there to figures in the high teens. Perhaps more importantly, it has caused a pollitical fallout of driving people into the hands of neo-fascist and ex-communist parties. Neither of this strikes me as attractive..

May I ask what your current position is regarding the comparison of European and American unemployment rates? In particular, do you still think the superiority of the USA over Europe is mostly a statistical artifact?

Detect a pattern?

nimh wrote:

Detect a pattern?

Yes. You left out Hungary, which is ideologically inconvenient for you, even though I think you're somewhat aware of the place.

What do you think of my suggestion to drop the cherry-picking on both sides and compare large aggregates, such as the USA and the EU 15?

I thought the argument I was addressing was that of neoloberals claiming that comparative unemployment rates serve as evidence for the failure of social-democratic/welfare state arrangements compared to the more libertarian US model.

OK, so what are appropriate examples to use when addressing the success or failure of the model of social-democratic/welfare state arrangements?

Greece, Portugal and Spain, all included in the EU-15, countries that emerged from right-wing dictatorship and poverty to join the more social-democratic-minded EU only at the cusp of the era of market reform? Arguable, but problematic.

Eastern Germany, which was under the dictatorial communist yoke all the decades the West-European welfare state was developed? Nonsense. [..]

Instead, I'd propose that obvious examples of 'classic' West-European welfare-state models to look at, when comparing it with the US model, would include (of course) Sweden, as well as Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, France, and yes, of course West-Germany.

What's cherry-picking about that?

For reference sake, according to these IMF numbers, Sweden has 4,9% unemployment; Norway 3,9%, Denmark 5,7%, the Netherlands 3,4%, Germany (east+west) 11,7%, France 8,8% and Belgium 12,3%.

If several of those places (like West-Germany and The Netherlands) do in fact not turn out to have materially higher unemployment rates than the US, when measured against the same yardstick, doesn't that totally pull out the rug out from underneath its use as evidence of the failure of the welfare state?

If France, Belgium and Eastern-Germany have an extraordinarily high unemployment rate but Holland, West-Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Norway do not, then how is it an obvious reason to blame the social-democratic-type economic model that all these countries share?

If several of those places (like West-Germany and The Netherlands) do in fact not turn out to have materially higher unemployment rates than the US, when measured against the same yardstick, doesn't that totally pull out the rug out from underneath its use as evidence of the failure of the welfare state?

It might, but I a look into the "Statistisches Jahrbuch des Deutschen Bundesamtes" did not confirm your figure for West Germany. The statistic itself does not seem to be available at destatis.de, but sozialpolitik-aktuell.de has it plotted here. The 2004 figure is West Germany: 9.4%, East Germany: 20.1%, Germany as a whole: 11.7%. I guess that adjustment to the OECD standard would bring the west German figure down to 8.2%, but not to the 6.X% that you quoted earlier.

Would you consider it fair if we calculated a population-weighted average of the countries you counted in, then compare that to the corresponding USA figure?

Myself, when I look at those diverging unemployment rates from across 'welfare-state-country' (and that term is used relatively, of course, since none is left unreformed by now), its another question that comes up than what the per capita average would be. Its this: what did The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway did right, that France and Belgium did wrong?

Blair and Chirac revive alliance

Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac have stressed their determination jointly to meet the challenges facing Europe.
The two leaders sought to play down their differences over the EU budget and reforms in the 25-nation bloc.

France "will deploy all its support for the British [EU] presidency," Mr Chirac said after the informal talks in Paris.

Mr Blair stressed the need to "find a way forward" together as Europe's citizens questioned EU policies.

EU leaders needed to agree on how to handle the challenge of globalisation, Mr Blair said, pointing to the emerging global power of China and India.

His call for joint efforts was echoed by Mr Chirac, who said "We are both determined to be a force of harmony for the Europe of tomorrow".


Bonhomie was restored - but the EU lacks a common vision

Reform agenda

His talks with Mr Chirac focused on preparations for the EU summit at Hampton Court in London on 27-28 October.

The EU project lost momentum after the double blow struck by voters in France and the Netherlands, who rejected the new EU constitution earlier this year.
Mr Blair is hoping to use the rest of Britain's EU presidency - which ends in December - to introduce far-reaching reform of the EU.
But Mr Chirac has resisted UK pressure for the EU to overhaul its Common Agricultural Policy.

Mr Blair has also called for reform of the European social model of generous state benefits and employment rights, to help Europe compete with China and India.

Differences boiled over at the Brussels summit in June, when EU leaders failed to agree a budget.

At the time Mr Chirac called on Britain to contribute more generously to EU finances by giving up part of its budget rebate.

Mr Blair responded by insisting Britain's contribution had to be linked to reform of European farm subsidies, which Mr Chirac staunchly defends and which greatly benefit French farmers.

The UK argues that the subsidies would be better spent on education and technology to raise the EU's competitiveness.

The UK is anxious to resolve the deadlock over a new 2007-2013 EU budget before its presidency ends.

Since the London bombs in July, both countries have been keen to emphasise the constructive nature of their relations, said the BBC's Alasdair Sandford, in Paris.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4318080.stm