Frederic Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, such creatures used to exist) from the 1800s, famously observed that a good economist always considers both the “seen” and “unseen” consequences of any action.
A sloppy economist looks at the recipients of government programs and declares that the economy will be stimulated by this additional money that is easily seen, whereas a good economist recognises that the government can’t redistribute money without doing unseen damage by first taxing or borrowing it from the private sector.
A sloppy economist looks at bailouts and declares that the economy will be stronger because the inefficient firms that stay in business are easily seen, whereas a good economist recognises that such policies imposes considerable unseen damage by promoting moral hazard and undermining the efficient allocation of labour and capital.
We now have another example to add to our list. Many European nations have “social protection” laws that are designed to shield people from the supposed harshness of capitalism. And part of this approach is so-called Employment Protection Legislation (EPL), which ostensibly protects workers by, for instance, making layoffs very difficult.
The people who don’t get laid off are seen, but what about the unseen consequences of such laws?
Well, an academic study from three French economists has some sobering findings for those who think regulation and “social protection” are good for workers.
One of the findings from the study is that “EPL” is an area where the United States historically has always had an appropriately laissez-faire approach (which also is evident from the World Bank’s data in the Doing Business Index).
Here’s a chart showing the U.S. compared to some other major developed economies.
It’s good to see, by the way, that Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands engaged in some meaningful reform between 1994-2006.
But let’s get back to our main topic. What actually happens when nations have high or low levels of Employment Protection Legislation?
According to the research of the French economists, high levels of rules and regulations cause employers to substitute capital for labour, with low-skilled workers suffering the most:
Our main estimation results show an EPL effect: i) positive for non-ICT physical capital intensity and the share of high-skilled employment; ii) non-significant for ICT capital intensity; and (iii) negative for R&D capital intensity and the share of low-skilled employment. These results suggest that an increase in EPL would be considered by firms to be a rise in the cost of labour, with a physical capital to labour substitution impact in favour of more non-sophisticated technologies and would be particularly detrimental to unskilled workers. Moreover, it confirms that R&D activities require labour flexibility.
According to simulations based on these results, structural reforms that lowered EPL to the “lightest practice”, i.e. to the US EPL level, would have a favourable impact on R&D capital intensity and would be helpful for unskilled employment (30% and 10% increases on average, respectively). …The adoption of this US EPL level would require very largescale labour market structural reforms in some countries, such as France and Italy. So this simulation cannot be considered politically and socially realistic in a short time. But considering the favourable impact of labour market reforms on productivity and growth. …It appears that labour regulations are particularly detrimental to low-skilled employment, which is an interesting paradox as one of the main goals of labour regulations is to protect low-skilled workers. These regulations seem to frighten employers, who see them as a labour cost increase with consequently a negative impact on low-skilled employment.
There’s a lot of jargon in the above passage for those who haven’t studied economics, but the key takeaway is that employment for low-skilled workers would jump by 10 percent if other nations reduced labour-market regulations to American levels.
Now let’s review an IMF study that looks at what happened when Germany substantially deregulated labour markets last decade.
“After a decade of high unemployment and weak growth leading up to the turn of the 21st century, Germany embarked on a significant labour market overhaul. The reforms, collectively known as the Hartz reforms, were put in place in three steps between January 2003 and January 2005. They eased regulation on temporary work agencies, relaxed firing restrictions, restructured the federal employment agency, and reshaped unemployment insurance to significantly reduce benefits for the long-term unemployed and tighten job search obligations.”
And when the authors say that long-term unemployment benefits were “significantly” reduced, they weren’t exaggerating.
Here’s a chart from the study showing the huge cut in subsidies for long-run joblessness.
So what were the results of the German reforms?
To put it mildly, they were a huge success.
“…the unemployment rate declined steadily from a peak of almost 11 percent in 2005 to five percent at the end of 2014, the lowest level since reunification. In contrast, following the Great Recession other advanced economies — particularly in the euro area — experienced a marked and persistent increase in unemployment. The strong labor market helped Germany consolidate its public finances, as lower outlays on unemployment benefits resulted in lower spending while stronger taxes and social security contribution pushed up revenues.”
Gee, what a shocker. When the government stopped being as generous to people for being unemployed, fewer people chose to be unemployed.
Which is exactly what happened in the United States when Congress finally stopped extending unemployment benefits.
And it’s also worth noting that this was also a period of good fiscal policy in Germany, with the burden of spending rising by only 0.18 percent annually between 2003-2007.
But the main lesson of all this research is that some politicians probably have noble motives when they adopt “social protection” legislation. In the real world, however, there’s nothing “social” about laws and regulations that either discourage employers from hiring people or discourage people from finding jobs.
This piece was originally published on the author’s personal blog and has been republished here with permission.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Washington’s premier free-market think tank.
An appeal from Swarajya
At Swarajya, we rely on our readers' support through subscriptions to sustain our media platform. Unlike larger conglomerates, we are unable to relentlessly chase advertising money — our model is largely built on your patronage.
Your support has never been more crucial. We work tirelessly to deliver 10-15 high-quality articles daily, ensuring you receive insightful content from 7 AM to 10 PM.
If you believe India's story has to be articulated in a way it has never been done before without shrugging it off, become a patron (or) subscribe now for ₹̶2̶4̶0̶0̶ ₹1999 and get 12 print issues, unlimited digital access for 1 year, a special India that is Bharat T-shirt (Offer ends soon).
We are counting on you!