Acceso usuarios
John Schmitt, Vicente Navarro López
El articulo analiza críticamente las tesis sostenidas por Guillermo de la Dehesa que asume que el modelo social europeo no es económicamente viable a no ser queso reforme inspirándose en las políticas desarrolladas en EEUU -que el autor considera responsables de su dxliv económico-entre las que incluye uno mayor desregulación del mercado de trabajo y una disminución del gasto publico. Sin embargo, el modelo social europeo es viable, puesto que tanto la Unión Europea (UE) en su conjunto como las economías de varios países europeos han sido, y continuos siendo, tasto o mdv exitosas que EEUU. El hecho de que en los últimos años EEUU haya tenido un crecimiento económico mayor que el de lo UE en su conjunto (aunque no mayor que el de varios de sus miembros) no se deben las condiciones del mercado laboral o al menor gasto público estadounidense, sino la existencia de un marco federal (un Gobierno federal que redistribuye el 19% del PIB, un Banco Central -The Federal Reserve Borrad- que combina el objetivo de controlar la inflación con el de estimular el desarrollo económico, y la ausencia de un Pacto de Estabilidad) inexistente en la UE (cuyo Gobierno europeo redistribuyo solo un 1,1% del PIB, existiendo un Banco Central Europeo que tiene como objetivo único controlar la inflación y un Pacto de Estabilidad que prohíbo un difícil público mayor del 3% del PIBI. Es urgente que la Unión Europea desarrolle unas instituciones de carácter federal, cambie el Pacto de Estabilidad y reduzca lo excesiva independencia del BCE.
This article critically analyzes the thesis presented by Guillermo de la Dehesa, who sustains that the European social model is not economically viable unless it is reformed to follow the U.S. economic model. De la Dehesa proposes to deregulate the labor markets and to reduce public expendidures, as the U.S. model has done. This article indicates that the European model is indeed viable since the European Union (EU), in its totality, as well as several EU members, have historically performed better than the U.S. on many fronts, as demonstrated by the data presented in the article. The fact that the U.S. has recently had a larger economic growth than the EU (although not as many of the EU members) is not a result of deregulation of the labor markets and smaller public expenditures, but rather, it is an outcome of the existence in the U.S. of: a) a federal government that manages and redistributes 19% of the GDP, b) a Federal Reserve Board (the U.S. Central Bank) that has as its objectives to control inflation and stimulate economic growth, and, c) an absence of a Stability Pact. In the EU, on the contrary: a) the European Government (the European Commission) manages only 1,1% of the GDP, b) its European Central Bank has as its main objective to control inflation rather than stimulating economic growth, and, c) has a Stability Pack that forbids having a central government deficit larger than 3% of its GDP. Based on this reading of the causes for the EU's lower economic growth than the US's, the article concludes the need for the EU: a) to develop a central government with higher resources at its disposal, b) to change the Stability Pact, and, c) to reduce the excessive independence ot the European Central Bank.
