I suggested earlier this year that Denmark’s ratio of private sector workers compared with government dependents produced the world’s most depressing Powerpoint slide.
It’s hard to be optimistic, after all, if a nation has an ever-growing number of people riding in the wagon (or the “party boat“) and a stagnant population of productive people.
But I don’t want to be overly pessimistic. Denmark may have a big welfare state and a punitive tax system (I’ve joked that birthers should accuse Obama of being born there rather than Kenya), but it is very pro-market in other policy areas.
Indeed, it beats the United States in 3 out of the 5 major categories in the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index.
And while the United States has a higher overall score – ranked #12 compared to #19, Denmark had more overall economic freedom than the United States as recently as 2010 and 2011.
With this introduction, you’re probably guessing that I plan on saying something nice about the Danes. And you’d be right. It turns out that our Nordic friends are slowly but surely adopting my Golden Rule of spending restraint.
Look at this data on government spending from the IMF’s database. As you can see, the burden of spending has been climbing at a much slower rate in recent years, and the forecast shows even more frugality in the near future.
Perhaps most important, the modest fiscal discipline that began in 2009 is paying big dividends.
Government spending that year consumed nearly 58 percent of Denmark’s economic output. Now, the burden of spending is “only” 53 percent of GDP.
Still astronomically high, to be sure, but heading in the right direction. And if Denmark maintains the spending restraint projected by the IMF, the burden of spending will drop to less than 51 percent of GDP in 2017.
And that may actually happen. Just a few days ago, Denmark’s left-wing government was voted out of office and the new center-right government is promising tighter control of the purse strings.
I would like to think I played a very tiny role in this development. My friend Mads Lundby Hansen from Denmark’s free-market think tank (CEPOS) took part in a debate before the election and promoted the Golden Rule.
Here’s a picture from his Facebook page.
Unfortunately, even though I would like to think I played a role, Mads burst my bubble by informing me that the Golden Rule “wasn’t an issue in the election.”
But I don’t care if politicians are overtly cognizant of the Golden Rule. And I certainly don’t care if they know my name. I just want good policy.
So the moment the burden of government spending drops below 50 percent of GDP in Denmark, I’m going to declare victory in the battle.
Though I won’t declare victory in the war until we shrink government to its growth-maximizing level.
P.S. Denmark’s most famous welfare recipient is “Lazy Robert,” who was honored for his lack of contribution to society by being selected to the Moocher Hall of Fame.
P.P.S. One important lesson from Denmark is that a nation can somewhat successfully endure bad fiscal policy by being hyper-free market in other policy fields.
P.P.P.S. Another Nordic nation, Sweden, already enjoyed a big improvement in fiscal policy thanks to a multi-year period of spending restraint.
[…] there was almost no “real” growth in the burden of spending last decade (yes, Denmark has followed my Golden […]
[…] carga tributária sobre empresas e investimentos mais baixa do que os Estados Unidos. E a Dinamarca e a Suécia têm ambas implementado medidas modestas para conter gastos do governo, então até […]
[…] I want to focus on another aspect of Danish public policy that warms my heart. Back in 2015, I applauded the government for imposing some spending restraint and I expressed hope that plans for future fiscal discipline […]
[…] is still absurdly high, but at least there is a small bit of progress (presumably because of a modest amount of long-overdue spending […]
[…] Además, los legisladores están tratando de restringir el gasto del gobierno. […]
[…] France is anemic because of run-of-the-mill statism, and Denmark does okay because it’s only statist in one area (fiscal […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] De plus, les législateurs tentent de restreindre les dépenses du gouvernement . […]
[…] Moreover, lawmakers are now trying to restrain government spending. […]
[…] reached (and probably surpassed) the revenue-maximizing point on the Laffer Curve, Denmark is taking some modest steps to restrain the burden of government spending. Combined with very laissez-faire policies on other […]
[…] In recent years, Nordic nations have sought to undo the damage of big government with pro-market reforms and limits on the fiscal burden of government. […]
[…] In recent years, Nordic nations have sought to undo the damage of big government with pro-market reforms and limits on the fiscal burden of government. […]
[…] Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited […]
[…] Both Sweden and Denmark have been good examples for my Golden Rule, albeit only for limited […]
[…] but also hyper-free market policies in other areas (and maybe some fiscal progress if Denmark continues to follow the Golden […]
[…] in general have lower business tax burdens and investment tax burdens than the United States. And Denmark and Sweden have both taken some modest steps to restrain government spending, so even in the […]
[…] in general have lower business tax burdens and investment tax burdens than the United States. And Denmark and Sweden have both taken some modest steps to restrain government spending, so even in the realm […]
[…] he picked Denmark and […]
[…] he picked Denmark and […]
[…] good news is that Nordic nations have begun to shift back toward market-oriented policies. Some of them have reduced the burden of government spending. All of them have lowered tax rates, particularly on […]
I cannot tell if the numbers are inflation indexed i.e. real spending growth or nominal.
But if they are real spending growth then the numbers might indicate that it’s already too late for Denmark. Perhaps the vicious cycle to decline has closed.
If Denmark now has enough statism that its growth trendline has been suppressed to the Eurozone long term average (~1%) then even a 1% real government spending growth (which we would have to see if does indeed materialize or if it’s just a “plan”) will violate Mitchell’s law.
And this is the problem that implementation of Mitchell’s law faces in most voter-lemming nations. Once low growth sets in, voters first start voting like Europeans, then like the French, and finally like Greeks. Then Hugo Chavez or Putin (two faces, same coin) comes along to offer HopNChange.
Any country, at any point in time in its growth trajectory, can make a few naïve mistakes and peel off into decline. Relative decline that is. In most cases just a decline in worldwide prosperity ranking, but decline nonetheless. Today’s luxuries, are tomorrow’s staples. How many voter lemmings would be happy today with what hippies considered adequate staples in the 1960’s?
You will want more. Even if you are not greedy, you will want the staples of tomorrow’s world. If your country’s growth rate does not at least match world average growth, it is most likely that you will not have such staples.
[…] WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
Reblogged this on rennydiokno.com.