1. Whose economy? Scotland in Northern Europe: balancing dynamic economies with greater social equality

2. Whose Economy? Poverty and Inequality

3. Whose Economy? Oxfam/UWS seminar series Why persistent poverty exists alongside high economic prosperity, leading to significant inequalities in income and wealth, and in life chances and lifestyles, between individuals and communities. Why, despite decades of economic growth, regeneration and anti-poverty policies, many Scots face a life characterised by high mortality, economic inactivity, mental and physical ill-health, poor educational attainment, and increasing exclusion. Conclusion: Our Economy, A Whose Economy Seminar Paper, June 2011,

4. Why do we have less poverty than the United States, but much more than Norway, Sweden and Denmark? The reasons lie very much more in the distribution systems of the respective countries than in the personal behaviour of people in poverty. Why some affluent Western democracies maintain substantial poverty and others are more egalitarian and accomplish low levels of poverty is mainly due to “the generosity of the welfare state”. Adrian Sinfield, Whose welfare state now?, in Whose Economy?, http://policy- practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/download?Id=436761&dl=http://oxfamilibrary. openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/188809/5/dp-whose-economy- papers-complete-series-010911-en.pdf

5. Recent quote The prime minister said: “there are countries in Europe, small countries that make it on their own, but... we are better off, we are stronger together, we're fairer together, we're richer together”. So must be able to measure strength, fairness, richness and so compare. And, given what we’ve heard here already this morning, can we identify an even better way? Are there countries that are more resilient, robust, competitive [stronger], more equal with less poverty, greater gender equality and a progressive tax/welfare system [fairer] and more prosperous [richer]?

6. Richer?

7. International Monetary FundInternational Monetary Fund (2011 estimate) RankCountryUS$ 1Luxembourg122,272 3Norway96,591 4Switzerland84,983 7Denmark63,003 8Sweden61,098 13Finland50,090 14Ireland48,517 21Iceland43,226 22United Kingdom39,604

8. RankCountryIntl. $ 1Qatar102,891 4Norway53,376 13Sweden40,613 15Ireland39,507 16Iceland38,079 19Denmark37,741 21Finland36,723 22United Kingdom35,974 International Monetary FundInternational Monetary Fund (2011 estimate)

9. RankCountryIntl. $ 1Luxembourg89,769 4Norway56,894 10Ireland39,727 12Denmark39,558 14Sweden38,947 19Finland36,660 20United Kingdom35,860 21Iceland34,949 World Bank (2010)

10. CIA World Factbook (2010) RankCountryIntl. $ 1Qatar179,000 5Norway54,600 17Sweden39,100 18Iceland38,300 20Ireland37,300 21Denmark36,600 26Finland35,400 27United Kingdom34,800

12. Scotland's long-term GDP growth performance (1975-2005) Source: Eurostat, OECD, Scottish Government

13. Indicator ScotlandDenmarkFinlandIcelandIrelandNorwaySweden GDP growth - 30 year annual average 4421123 GDP per head 3222112 Employment rate (15-64 yr olds) 2121311 Productivity 2223112 Entrepreneurial activity 3321114 Total R&D as % GDP 3211331 Business R&D as % total R&D 4213231 Graduates as % of the population (aged 25-64) 2131212 Population growth (1999-2006) 4331123 Net migration as a % of the population 2431123 Export sales growth -3 yr annual ave 4332342

14. Fairer?

15. Income inequality in selected OECD countries Source: OECD (2008), Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries.

16. Gini coefficients of income inequality in OECD countries, mid-2000s Note: Countries are ranked, from left to right, in increasing order in the Gini coefficient. The income concept used is that of disposable household income in cash, adjusted for household size with an elasticity of 0.5. Source: OECD income distribution questionnaire.

17. % of the total population% of total population Persons at- risk-of- poverty after social transfers Persons severely materially deprived Persons aged 0-59 living in household s with very low work intensity Persons falling under at least one of the three criteria (at risk of poverty or social exclusion) 20092010 EU27*16.48.19.923.123.4 Denmark13.32.710.317.618.3 Ireland:::25.7: Finland13.12.89.116.9 Sweden12.91.35.915.915.0 United Kingdom 17.14.813.122.023.1 Iceland9.81.85.611.614.3 Norway11.22.07.315.214.9 At risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2010

18. SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT RATES (%) Nov 11 Youth (under 25s)MalesFemales EA1721.710.110.7 EU2722.39.710.0 Denmark14.97.67.9 Ireland29.317.311.4 Finland19.68.26.7 Sweden23.27.67.4 UK (Sept 11)22.09.07.5 Norway8.63.33.4

19. Net Replacement Rates for six family types: initial phase of unemployment 2009, different earnings levels 67% of AW100% of AW150% of AW No children2 childrenNo children2 childrenNo children2 children Single person married couple Lone parent married couple Single perso n married couple Lone parent married couple Single perso n married couple Lone parent married couple One- earner Two- earner One- earner Two- earner One- earner Two- earner One- earner Two- earner One- earner Two- earner One- earner Two- earner Denmark838591898893606374757277464861645964 Finland6475788583 526072747276444763605767 Iceland77728984779177808683 88566171656774 Ireland467273697677335261606365253950484955 Norway676984888986656780877182474965 5267 Sweden69 8583808648 6965587136 58514460 United Kingdom 556659727769384649647158263239465147

20. over 90% in Finland; 80%–89% in Belgium and Sweden; 70%–79% in Denmark and Norway; 60%–69% in Italy; 50%–59% in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta; 40%–49% in Romania; 30%–39% in Austria, Ireland and Slovenia; 20%–29% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK; 10%–19% in Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Spain; below 10% in Estonia and Lithuania. Higher among women than among men in half of the 20 countries examined – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden TU Membership Density (2008)

21. Gender equality Proportion in Parliament Proportion on Company Boards CEOs Childcare Etc.

22. The Global Gender Gap Index 2010 rankings: Comparisons with 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 20102009200820072006 Countryrankscorerankscorerankscorerankscorerankscore Iceland10.849610.827640.799940.783640.7813 Norway20.840430.822710.823920.805920.7994 Finland30.826020.825220.819530.804430.7958 Sweden40.802440.81393 10.814610.8133 Ireland60.777380.759780.751890.7457100.7335 Denmark70.771970.762870.753880.751980.7462 United Kingdom 150.7460150.7402130.7366110.744190.7365

23. Detailed rankings, 2010 Overall Economic Participation and Opportunity Educational Attainment Health and Survival Political Empowerment CountryRankScoreRankScoreRankScoreRankScoreRankScore Iceland10.8496180.754011.0000960.969610.6748 Norway20.840430.830611.0000910.969730.5614 Finland30.8260160.7566280.999310.979620.5686 Sweden40.8024110.7695410.9964800.972940.4706 Ireland60.7773250.740911.0000890.970070.3985 Denmark70.7719230.743811.0000680.9743100.3695 United Kingdom 150.7460340.721011.0000900.9698220.2933

24. Press Freedom Index 2011/2012, Reporters without Borders RankCountryScore 1=Finland-10,00 1=Norway-10,00 6Iceland-7,00 10=Denmark-5,67 12Sweden-5,50 15Ireland-4,00 28United Kingdom2,00 http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043

25. Stronger?

26. Country/EconomyRank/142Score GCI 2011– 2012 rank among 2010 countries GCI 2010– 2011 rank Switzerland15.7411 Singapore25.6323 Sweden35.6132 Finland45.4747 Denmark85.4089 UnitedKingdom105.391012 Norway165.181614 Ireland294.7729 Iceland304.753031 The Global Competitiveness Index 2011–2012 rankings and 2010–2011 comparisons World Economic Forum (2011) The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf

27. Entrepreneurial activity rates -Scotland, UK, Arc of Prosperity countries, 2000 to 2007 TEA index 2007 Average annual TEA rate Scotland as % of average TEA rate Scotland4.64.8 United Kingdom5.55.981% Arc of Prosperity countries Finland6.95.785% Denmark5.45.883% Norway6.58.060% Ireland8.28.855% Iceland12.511.841% Sweden4.24.4110%

28. R&D investments by ICT Scoreboard firms per country of registered headquarters in the EU, in millions of € (2005-2008)

29. ICT priority patent applications by EU Member State, 2000 and 2007 ICT patent Applications ICT Patent Applications /milllion inhab. ICT Patent Applications/GDP (billion euro) 2007 DE7971Finland136Finland4.03 FR3030DE97DE3.28 UK1809Sweden62Sweden1.69 Finland723AT52FR1.60 Sweden571FR49AT1.58 NL497IE36BG1.35 AT430NL30SI1.06 IT350UK30CZ0.91 ES318Denmark29EE0.89 BE236BE22UK0.88

30. Number of ICT and non-ICT patent applications per million inhabitants, by EU Member State, 2007

31. EU Member States’ innovation performance Innovation leaders: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden all show a performance well above that of the EU27 average

32. Happiness and quality of life?

33. Happiness Once again, Norwegians rank among the happiest people in the world, behind only their fellow Nordic neighbours in Denmark and Finland. The latest Gallup World Poll indicates that the Nordic countries, with their social welfare states and relative affluence, must be doing something right. Only the people of Iceland were missing when four out of the five Nordic countries grabbed the top spots on the Gallup World Poll’s list. Sweden ranked just after Norway in a tie for fourth place. Forbes Magazine, from OECD report

34. Place In Norway, also considered by the United Nations to be the world’s best place to live, fully 69 percent of the population were said to be thriving while none of the respondents was “suffering.” But 31 percent were considered to be “struggling,” compared to 30 percent in Sweden, even though the economy in Sweden is considered to be weaker than Norway’s.the world’s best place to live

35. OECD Better Life Initiative. (2011)

36. ‘Happiest countries in the world’ [OECD plus economic stability] 10. Austria 9. Israel 8. Finland 7. Switzerland 6. Sweden 5. The Netherlands 4. Australia 3. Norway 2. Canada 1. Denmark

37. Human Developmen t Index (HDI) Gross National Income (GNI) per capita GNI per capita rank minus HDI rank Nonincome HDI HDI rank Value (Constant 2005 PPP$)Value 2011 1Norway0.94347,55760.975 7Ireland0.90829,322190.959 10Sweden0.90435,83740.936 14Iceland0.89829,354110.943 16Denmark0.89534,34730.926 22Finland0.88232,43800.911 28United Kingdom0.86333,296-70.879 Human Development Report 2011 - Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All Human Development Index

38. Resilient and robust?

39. Legatum Prosperity Index (2011) 1Norway 2Denmark 5Sweden 7Finland 11Ireland 12Iceland 13United Kingdom

40. The Road to a Better Place? Can we join this group – that is move into the high income, high wealth, sustainable, low inequality, high opportunity, coherent economy and society?

41. Traffic problems: the Road

42. The Arc of Prosperity becomes “Only prudent Norway is holding its head above water”. Associated Press: “Iceland teeters on the brink of bankruptcy” International Herald Tribune: “Iceland is all but officially bankrupt” Forbes: “Iceland teeters on bankruptcy” New York Times: “Iceland, in financial collapse...” ‘the arc of insolvency’ ‘the arc of darkness’ ‘the arc of delusion’

43. Financial crisis Surely small countries cannot cope ~ Nordic model(s) ‘not sustainable’ Better together Protection Support Recovery

44. Public Debt (% of GDP) 2010 Country Ranks, By Rank Rank CountryValue 10 Iceland 100.6 22 United Kingdom 68.5 27 Ireland 63.7 29 Norway 60.2 40 World 53.6 53 Finland 46.6 60 Sweden 43.2 67 Denmark 38.1

45. List of countries by public debt (2011) Public debt as %GDP (CIA and Eurostat)(IMF) Sweden 39.739.70 Denmark 43.743.65 Finland 48.348.39 Norway 48.955.42 World59.379.25 United Kingdom 79.975.50 European Union 82.380.00 Ireland 94.994.92 Iceland126.192.37

46. IMF Report: During the past twenty years we have witnessed several major crises throughout the financial world. The IMF study of banking crises around the world reveals that 133 countries experienced significant banking sector problems at some stage during the years 1980-1995. The amount of public expenditure needed for resolving the crises and reviving banking sector activity has been remarkable in all countries. According to the above-mentioned IMF study, in some 25% of the crises, the costs exceeded 10% of GNP. The figures from the Nordic countries show that taxpayers' costs have ranged from 3% (Norway) to 8% (Finland) of GNP. Considering that not only the government budget but the whole economy suffers from such a crisis, it is understandable that the countries around the world, together with international organisations, have joined forces to determine the most efficient ways to avoid systemic financial crises. Banking crises

47. “The arc of prosperity become the arc of insolvency” Sweden and Norway had banking crises in the early Nineties. The Scandinavian banks collapsed after... a credit and property bubble in the 1980s that burst just like ours. The Norwegian government moved quickly, driving down the shares of the banks to zero, nationalising many and taking an equity stake in the rest. It restructured and recapitalised the banks and then sold them off, so that the Norwegian taxpayers didn’t lose and the bankers didn’t get bailed out. http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2008/10/arc-of- prosperity-become-arc-of.html

48. Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic.. banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent. … [but 3 years later, Sweden back on track] But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, [with more returns to come]. However, the reforms enacted during the 1990s seem to have created a model in which extensive welfare benefits can be maintained in a global economy. NY Times

49. A better fiscal way?

50. GDP, government deficit/surplus and debt in the EU (in national currencies) 2007200820092010 Denmark Government deficit (-) / surplus (+) (% of GDP)4.83.2-2.7-2.6 Government expenditure(% of GDP)50.851.958.458.5 Government revenue(% of GDP)55.655.255.655.7 Government debt (% of GDP)27.534.541.843.7 Ireland Government deficit (-) / surplus (+) (% of GDP)0.1-7.3-14.2-31.3 Government expenditure(% of GDP)36.642.848.966.8 Government revenue(% of GDP)36.735.534.735.5 Government debt (% of GDP)24.944.365.294.9 Finland Government deficit (-) / surplus (+) (% of GDP)5.34.3-2.5 Government expenditure(% of GDP)47.449.355.955.3 Government revenue(% of GDP)52.753.653.252.5 Government debt (% of GDP)35.233.943.348.3 Sweden Government deficit (-) / surplus (+) (% of GDP)3.62.2-0.70.2 Government expenditure(% of GDP)51.051.755.052.9 Government revenue(% of GDP)54.553.954.152.8 Government debt (% of GDP)40.238.842.739.7 United Kingdom* Government deficit (-) / surplus (+) (% of GDP)-2.7-5.0-11.5-10.3 Government expenditure(% of GDP)43.947.951.450.4 Government revenue(% of GDP)41.142.940.140.3 Government debt (% of GDP)44.454.869.679.9

51. Government Expenditure and Revenue as % of GDP 20072010 DENMARK Government expenditure50.858.5 Government revenue55.655.7 IRELAND Government expenditure36.666.8 Government revenue36.735.5 FINLAND Government expenditure47.455.3 Government revenue52.752.5 SWEDEN Government expenditure51.052.9 Government revenue54.552.8 UNITED KINGDOM Government expenditure43.950.4 Government revenue41.140.3 Fiscal Stability and Responsibility

52. Personal taxation

53. Current Account Balance to GDP General Government Overall Balance to GDP 20092010201120122009201020112012 Advanced European Economies 0.70.8 1.0-6.4-6.0-4.3-3.3 Euro area -0.3-0.40.10.4-6.3-6.0-4.1-3.1 Finland 2.33.12.5 -2.8 0.3 Ireland -2.90.51.81.9-14.2-32.0-10.3-8.6 Other EU advanced economies Denmark 3.85.16.4 -2.8-2.9-3.0 Sweden 7.06.35.85.3-0.9-0.30.81.3 United Kingdom -1.7-3.2-2.7-2.3-10.3-10.2-8.5-7.0 Non-EU advanced economies Iceland -11.7-10.21.93.2-8.6-5.4-4.1-2.3 Norway 12.912.414.012.810.610.912.011.2 Memorandum European Union -0.1 -0.20.0-6.8-6.5-4.6-3.6 Advanced European Countries: Main Macroeconomic Indicators, 2009–12 (Percent ) IMF

54. Total tax revenue as percentage of GDP, 2009, ranked by tax to GDP ratios

55. Summary

56. View from Wall Street The happiest countries seem to be places where there is a good balance of work and leisure time. Not all nations can afford to keep unemployment low through government subsidies. Not all countries can afford to provide universal medical coverage. Not all countries can afford to educate almost all of their children, which in turn supports extremely high literacy rates and builds a population of skilled workers. 24/7 Wall St

57. Together or not: The prime minister said: “there are countries in Europe, small countries that make it on their own, but... we are better off X we are stronger X we're fairer X we're richer X

58. Impacts of poverty poor in a rich country intensely stressful made worse by stigmatisation both in the media and as result of political rhetoric. Pressures to consume stem from a culture that elevates passions and image above relationships, community contribution, and care for others and the environment There must be a better way

59. Routes out of poverty Possible to overcome poverty, 6 th richest => adequate resources. Need allocation in more effective and sustainable way. Greater role for businesses: paying taxes, ↑ employment of those further from the labour market, offering decent jobs in sustainable industries. Higher expectation on businesses to deliver social sustainability, particularly in return for the array of state support that businesses receive.

60. Social protection and equality social protection measures (education, NMW and social safety nets) strong mechanisms to increase equality. they are a collective good - all depend on and all benefit, cf. financial drain. funded fairly by progressive taxation. Collective ownership, management => genuine participation in all economic activity – sharing ownership, work, and rewards

61. Can we move from poverty - prosperity new prosperity, a shared future where we are simply better at sharing, where there are fewer extremes of money and wealth, esteem and status, power and position. community-led economy focused on quality and distribution of growth, where the assets of communities and the value of individuals are utilised and enhanced to promote social and environmental sustainability.

62. Size matters Iceland's Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson has told the BBC that his country's size has been crucial in the move towards recovery: "You are quicker turning a small boat around than a big ship."