Before the storm

Anthony Atkinson's book as a symbol of deceptive hope

We continue to discuss the “inequality” - the text of Anthony B. Atkinson, who devoted a life to the struggle with the ever -increasing gap between the income of the poor and the rich. He sees salvation in the expansion of social programs. However, economist Yuri Kuznetsov is confident that the modern social state - as an idea and as a world dream - will soon be forced to change. He talks about this with Gorky.

- In his book Atkinson (this is an impression) romantics the period of the construction of modern social states. And the British society of universal welfare (Welfare state), and the American program for building the Great Society , and the “patron state” in France, and the concept of “houses for the people” in Scandinavian countries-all this work is seen by Atkinson with a kind of knightly image of Western state structure. He rejects the idea of ​​creating an “ideal” state, but all his proposals aim to build “sociality” and the continuation of the path, which had begun more than a hundred years ago. How do you assess the potential of a modern social state?

- In the mass discourse there is the concept of "developed European state." Not ideal, but something close to it. The rule of law, the parliamentary form of government, freedom of speech, human rights and, most importantly, social policy. Before us is a European social state, and this form of public power is a sufficiently recent phenomenon. In principle, we cannot say that an asocial state has ever existed or, excuse me for the tautology, “asocial society”. In any case, one way or another, the overlord or community took care of the poor, helpless, about children.

But the social state - in the present sense of this concept - has a hundred years. In Germany, with its “Prussian socialism”, the reforms began a hundred and fifty years ago (in 1871 state social insurance against industrial accidents was introduced, in 1880-financing of medical care, in 1883-illness for illness). But by and large, the construction of social states took place between the two wars in the twentieth century, and began to acquire close to today's forms in the post -war period.

In the current system of social representations, the state as a certain abstract eternal essence, separated from the personality of those who exercise power, must ensure physical survival to all its citizens and residents of the country. Not private institutions, not public organizations, not a church, not a family, but the state should guarantee everyone medical care, work, illness for illness and old age. In recent decades, superstructures have already been operating on this basic idea: now the state is obliged to ensure not only physical survival and security, but also the emancipation of its citizens and the possibility of their expression. And when I say “emancipation” and “self -expression”, I translate into Russian terms, everywhere used by ideologists of a developed social state.

That is, now we are talking not only about not to die, but also about finding a work that satisfies a person. And also have worthy living conditions and education, which can help perform a “personal breakthrough”. All this state is designed to do at the expense of the means that it collects in one way or another, forming its budget. But it is obliged to provide all of the above. I can’t help but notice that the idea of ​​a social state in this form is a secular version of the Christian idea of ​​salvation. At some point, the state took the place of the Savior for European peoples.

The parameters of a certain general quality of life change towards an increase - and a good conflict with the beautiful occurs: the obligations of the state increase. This is the dynamics of collective action: the modern democratic policy is largely built on the bribery of groups of voters with promises of various payments and privileges, and some of these promises are being implemented.

I dare to argue that the social state of the modern type is included in the crisis and soon (until 2040) will not be able to fulfill the entire amount of obligations taken.

-And Russia (USSR) was ever a real social state?

- if we assume that the key feature of the social state (as ideology, philosophy) is a messianic function; If we consider the state as a tool for solving any social problem by the ways of soft or frank legal violence, including in the field of redistribution of funds, from this point of view, the Soviet Union was, of course, a social state. But - peculiar. Another thing is that this unconditional European belief in the state, which “should”, because “it cannot be otherwise,” was broken in Russia, and the strange process of building a new unsteady agreement began. Everyone believed-including state-owned people-that the state should have some social obligations. And during the political process, over time, everything was somehow tired, fit, “returned”. Everyone reconciled that the pensions are so small - what they were. Medical services and insurance - what happened. People stopped rebelling, and, on the other hand, the state stopped crushing, it had resources, and somehow this situation was conditionally settled. Well, now everything was removed again and went. Another thing is that the experienced horror of unconsciousness does not allow people, perhaps to the end to realize what is happening - faith in the state is too valuable. If we will discuss the story with pensions - this, as I understand it, is the most important and fresh topic - then there are two fundamental “relations” to the very idea of ​​pension. Two poles, and between them a spectrum of opinions: how people generally perceive pension payments. At one pole - old -age payments are interpreted as purely contractual relations (a pension is a certain fixed social obligation recorded in a legal document, contract): “I am listing certain funds during the period of working activity, and depending on this I receive certain benefits.” And the opposite position is a pension as a gift. How mercy. The philanthropist gives, and good. How much does it give? As much as he can, and gives so much. It’s good that I do not die of hunger. In different countries and different societies, the attitude to pension reality fluctuates between these two poles.

- Atkinson, discussing the issue of “excessive” inequality ( half of the world's welfare (50.8 %) falls on 1 % super -rich; half of the adult population of the world has only 1 % global well -being), mentions Plato’s ideas - “ no one should be more than four times richer than the poorest member of society.” Does it not seem to you that the unfading charm of the Soviet social state is not in its ability to work with poverty (it is inferior to many world practices), namely, in the fact that the gap between poverty and wealth in the USSR (with some deviations associated mainly with real estate, which had a symbolic, but not real price), filed in this gold formula?

- Perhaps it was - about three decades, while the oil was dear. And cheap in prey. This can be considered a successful experiment, why not. But such a proportion leads - and, it seems, we passed it - to stagnation. If the Platonic Golden Formula reigned two hundred years ago all over the world, we would still have treated teeth without anesthesia. Alas, this is so. Economic works on the phenomenon of inequality are popular (Picketti, Branko Milanovich), but the discussion of this idea seems to me by an unproductive occupation. The fight against poverty and the fight against inequality that are not related to each other. If we want the poor people to live with dignity, this is the same task. It is solved by ordinary charity - whether state or non -state. The fight against inequality is a different task, and other tools are needed to solve it. From a certain point of view, the fight against inequality is an indulgence of envy. Here you can always recall the old fairy tale about the man to whom the wizard promised to fulfill his desire, provided that the neighbor would receive twice as much. And tell me, when will the indignant on the inequality be satisfied: when will he begin to live better or when the neighbor becomes worse? The simplest thought. And what long -lasting consequences leads to.

- Atkinson gives a report that all public institutions are now undergoing a test of new time (globalization, technological revolution, increasing life expectancy), but sees the hope that the European social state appeared during the period of “first” globalization and technical revolution. A child of one powerful transition period - why should it die in the next similar period? On the contrary, he believes that it was just the time to come back to radical solutions again. Therefore, he boldly proposes (so far for the UK) to introduce a significant amount of benefits paid to all children, without exception, to create a target fund that allows to issue a “minimum inheritance” to all citizens upon reaching adulthood and considers the benefits of basic income. You were interested in the Finnish experiment on the introduction of an unconditional basic income and wrote that the interest of the Russian public in failure or the success of this undertaking is infinitely great.

- Yes, basic income is an extremely spectacular and radical social measure, deeply touching the reader’s imagination. Each citizen, regardless of age and income, monthly receives a certain amount from the state - this seems to be a dream and approach to justice. But I must immediately say that the Finnish model [exactly like the proposal of Atkinson - approx. Ed.] Return to the redistribution of conditional national wealth (in our case, for example, oil revenues).

This, paradoxically, is an attempt to reduce the costs of the social state. An attempt to replace many existing manuals-for the poor, for the unemployed, for a variety of socially non-blessed groups-a single income, the amount of which is currently established in the amount of 560 euros. The first savings are the liquidation of the controlling administrative apparatus, which was previously engaged in the distribution of payments and verification of the poor “for need”. The second (and there is still an important moralizing and ideological component) - the basic income allows you to “push” people to work, to tear out of the so -called poverty trap. If the manual is unemployed, having settled down in the service, then the income remains with him, and this is a significant incentive in order to, feeling safe, try to improve its position and well -being.

Yes, payments apply to all citizens-and for the rich they simply become a tax deduction, but, presumably, the benefits of basic income in the perspective will block costs, especially on the eve of a possible increase in the number of unemployed due to technological changes that affect the labor market. However, Finland is only conducting an experiment so far; The unconditional basic income in the country has not yet been introduced. For Russia, I do not see the prospects and opportunities to introduce basic income: the country is very heterogeneous, unemployment benefits (exactly like many other social payments) are too small and we have no unemployed at the Weleher unemployed.

- Atkinson’s reading gives rise to unpleasant questions: the difference between the discussion of unconditional basic income and, say, the same increase in the retirement age that is being discussed with us is too great. This event seems to many a symbol of the state’s refusal of social obligations.

- In America, raising the retirement age was carried out back in 1983. This was the first well -known, famous case of raising the retirement age - as Reagan, both main parties went to this. True, only two years and with a large delay. So, they announced in 1983, and the increase in the start after 2000, as it touched on people born since 1955 (they can retire at 66) and after 1960 (at 67).

In all developed countries, there is a global crisis of pension systems, from which everyone is selected in their own way. Life expectancy and small number of children are reasons that cannot be circumvented. The same thing is: for all the aircraft, whatever they may be, the force of gravity acts equally. Of course, we have our own special reasons related to the uniqueness of the management system or precisely with the Russian budget deficit.

But in the six largest world economies, which, in the aggregate of 60 % of the global IHC, the amount of unsecured pension liabilities (that is, roughly speaking, the amount of funds that need to be added from the budget to pension funds so that they do not go bankrupt) is several dozens of trillions of dollars. This means the following: the state budget begins to borrow, borrowing the missing funds from investors. That is, it draws out money that could go to the development of production, innovation, etc., but go to the payment of obligations. By the way, interest on public debt, due to which state social programs are funded, are by no means the poor who really needs the means.

At some point, the situation can reach a critical point. Atkinson is an optimist, but my colleagues and I at one time, back in 2005, published a book by American Lawrence Kotlikoff, a demographic economy specialist who was written in co -authorship with Scott Burns, and it was called the Pension System in front of the Storm (The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know ABOUT America's Economic Future).

Kotlikoff very convincingly proves that you will have to go through serious perturbations of financial systems. This future problem - an inflated debt bubble - is seen by all economists, no matter what beliefs they may be: left, right, green, blue and so on. This is a reality, and it does not look at ideological preferences. Perhaps everything will not go so scary-life will continue, and somehow the states will reformat their obligations, but there will be no smooth Atkins to large social peaks. Nevertheless, I think that we will witness the collapse of the current world concept of the social state. In a certain sense, it will be a logical retribution for the game of messianism.

But until this happened until the debt crisis struck until you can build up obligations, while you can borrow and have something to take, you can read Atkinson with its excellent ability to work with statistics and a large number of new actual material; To analyze its results and assumptions (since it is precisely this possibility of such books that are interesting) and envy someone else's active optimism. Well, to think about how to build your life and the life of society in the new conditions.