Normative Economic Foundation for the Theory of Welfare State yosihara/normativeeconomicsof... · 2006-08-02 ·…
Post on 02-Jul-2018
Embed Size (px)
Normative Economic Foundation for theTheory of Welfare State Policies
In this paper, we propose an analytical foundation for normativeeconomics of the welfare state policies. First, we argue that the so-called neo-liberal reorganization of welfare states may be justified bythe conventional, welfarists welfare economics. Secondly, criticizingthe welfaristic evaluation of social and economic policies, we propose amore comprehensive framework in which extended social welfare func-tions (ESWFs) are also introduced. In this framework, not onlywelfaristic values, but also non-welfaristic values can be treated ap-propriately. Then, we formulate a non-welfarist normative theory,Real Libertarianism, proposed by van Parijs (1995), as axioms of La-bor Sovereignty and Respect for Undominated Diversity, and examinethe possibility of consistent social evaluations based on the axioms ofReal Libertarianism combined with the Pareto principle.JEL Classification Numbers: D63, I31, I38.
An earlier version of this paper was presented in IER Regular Seminar of October2005 at the Institute of Economic Research of Hitotsubashi University. In this seminar, Iwas given beneficial advice for revising this paper from Tokuo Iwaisako, Ryo Kambayashi,Takashi Kurosaki, and Tamotsu Nishizawa. I would like to express my gratitude to them.Also, when I delivered a related research report in the 142nd Globe Workshop PoliticalScience and Economics of Nation, Distribution, and Democracy of October 2005 at Schoolof Political Science and Economics of Waseda University, I had the opportunity to have adiscussion with Makoto Usami, and it was beneficial for writing this paper. I would liketo express my gratitude to him.
Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University, Naka 2-1, Kunitachi, Tokyo186-0004, Japan. (e-mail: email@example.com)
In the process of the globalization of the economy, the Japanese state welfaresystem is undergoing a tangible reorganization. This is frequently viewed asbeing a part of the neo-liberal movement. In other words, it is characterizedas an approach that places much importance on advancing free economiccompetition by deregulation and a redefinition of competition policy. Thiscreates a small government by transferring what has been in the hands of thepublic sector such as social welfare and education to the vitality of the privatesector, in order to improve economic efficiency. One of the characteristicsof such a policy, in terms of resource allocations, is tax reduction benefitinglarge scale enterprises and those in higher income bands,1 as well as thechange in the mechanism of income redistribution by cutting or reviewingsocial welfare benefits.2 Such policy changes are causing a downward trendin total cash earnings,3 while the proportion of non-regular employment isincreasing4 due to the deregulation of the labor market,5 resulting in a largerincome gap.6 This income gap provides fewer opportunities for the children of
1The examples are the reduction of the corporation tax (From 37.5% in FY 97 to34.5% in FY 98, 30% in FY 99) and the corporate enterprise tax (From 12% in FY 97to 11% in FY 98, 9.6% in FY 99), etc, the reduction of the maximum rate of income tax(From 50% in FY 98 to 37.5% in FY 99) and the residents tax (From 15% in FY 98to 13% in FY 99), introduction of Research and Development Tax System (FY 03), theabolition of the securities transaction tax (FY 99), and the tax reduction for dividendincome, and others.
2For example, in the review of Public Assistance System in Japan, introducing Inde-pendence support services was proposed, and the gradual cutting of the allowances forthe special needs of elderly recipients and single-mother recipients was also discussed. Asa whole, the reduction of fiscal expenditure for the Daily Life Protection, which will beimplemented in 2007, and its shift to the local governments are discussed as a part of theTrinity Reform package.
3Since 1998, wage has decreased by 19.2 trillion yen in five years.4This trend may result in solidifying the bargaining power of employers in the labor
market. In conjunction with this, regular employees are tending to work longer hours.5The examples are the introduction of the discretionary labor system in the Revision
of the Labor Standards Law (promulgated in July 2003, came into effect in January 2004),and the extension of the maximum duration of employment on terminal contracts fromone year to three years and the permission of temp workers in the manufacturing sectorin the Revision of the Worker Dispatching Law enacted in June 2003.
6The larger income gap is currently a controversial issue in Japan. For instance,Ohtake (2005) argues that the large income gap since the 80s is mainly due to the increasein the aging population, since in general, the income inequality within older generations
lower-income parents which in turn reduces their earning power, thus furtherreducing their childrens opportunities and earning power. This is destinedto continue from generation to generation.The neo-liberal reform of the welfare state system is often a target of
criticism in discussions7 of political science, sociology, Marxian economics,and others. However, the neo-liberal reform can also be evaluated fromthe point of view that it is concerned with the necessity of maintaining andreinforcing the international competitiveness of the national economy undereconomic globalization. More precisely, it is often argued that the series ofderegulations and the redefinition of competition policy may reform the com-petitive mechanism of markets so as to enhance the efficiency of economicresource allocations, which may contribute to improvement of social welfarein the long run. For instance, reforms such as lowering the maximum taxrate for corporate tax and income tax, abolishing securities transaction tax,reducing tax on dividend income, introduction of the Research and Devel-opment Tax System, and the deregulation of the labor market might steerthe budget distribution of the government toward measures to strengthenthe international competitiveness of the major domestic industries, ratherthan develop welfare-related policies for the socially underprivileged. Thismight eventually result in the maintenance and improvement of productiv-ity and the international competitiveness of the national economy under theleadership of major large scale enterprises. As a result, this will also inducean improvement of employment conditions for the socially underprivileged,as well as secure and expand the welfare-related budget for the socially un-derprivileged in the long run. Such an argument could be justified to someextent by the microeconomic analysis of mainstream economics. In fact,the hypothetical compensation principle in the new welfare economics mayprovide the theoretical justification of the neo-liberal policy scheme.However, the hypothetical compensation principle is not necessarily able
to evaluate the policy scheme consistently,8 and it does not take into consid-
is higher than within younger generations. Nevertheless, as Otake (2005) points out, thewidening income gap and consumption gap among the youth have been recognized sincethe 90s, and also the growing gap of financial assets among people at the same age hasbeen found.
7For instance, Saito (2004), Shionoya, Suzumura, and Gotoh (2004), Ikegami and Ni-nomiya (2005).
8The conventional criteria of the hypothetical compensation principle, although easilyconfirmed, have the possibility of producing cyclic binary relations.
eration the fairness of resource allocations. Thus, a new original criterion willneed to be thought of in order to provide judgments on the problem: whetherit is appropriate to neglect dealing with the inequality of opportunities, orto what extent corrective measures need to be established.Traditional welfare economics basically recognizes that political interven-
tion in the market is indispensable to solve the problems of market failure orthe fairness of resource allocations, although it also recognizes that Paretoefficiency of economic resource allocations is realized in the market with per-fect competition. Bearing this in mind, when suggesting further methods orcriteria for appropriate policy evaluation or a policy mechanism that servesfor such evaluations, such suggestions should take into account the valuesthat individuals in society might instinctively have regarding how welfareshould be. As long as this is the case, one might not be able to help but crit-ically evaluate the welfarist viewpoint and the methodology that traditionalwelfare economics considers as its premise. This is a fundamental issue takeninto account throughout the paper.For instance, the review of the Public Assistance System in Japan, which
is characterized as the introduction of Independence support services in or-der to promote labor market participation, can be placed in the workfarepolicy.9 10 In fact, although the review of Public Assistance System hasmany positive points including Independence support services which try toreflect the diverse needs of the recipients and organize the assistance menus,this proposal also includes the suggestion to consider the gradual cutting ofallowances for the special needs of elderly recipients and single-mother re-cipients, faced with the fact that there is an increasing number as well asproportion of long-term recipients as a result of the recent expanding eco-nomic gap. Furthermore, it also incorporates a sort of incentive mechanismwhere the recipients are required to participate in Independence support ser-vices in order to continue receiving their welfare benefits.The idea of social welfare behind the workfare system is motiv