The New Zealand Herald

Why Labour and National are both Super-wrong

- John Gascoigne is a Cambridge-based economic commentato­r.

There is wide divergence between National and Labour over New Zealand Superannua­tion. National is committed to raising the age of eligibilit­y from 65 to 67 from 2037 while Labour believes simply growing the economy will ensure NZS’s sustainabi­lity in its present form. Both arguments are totally flawed.

Achieving rich-nation status (very high per capita income) by 2050 is our best option rather than raising the qualifying age or simply relying on economic growth to solve the problem. That goal will only be achieved by a solid, bi-partisan commitment to an economic developmen­t strategy to vastly increase our productive sector. New Zealand will only prosper as an export powerhouse. In other words, think big and plug into the world.

The striking feature of all the tiny, highincome nations is the sheer immensity of their productive sectors compared to ours. They are all super-exporters. Hence their very high living standards. They can afford the best of everything; world-class healthcare, education and social safety nets. We cannot. New Zealand, despite its enormous potential, remains a low wage, cash-strapped agricultur­al nation in relative economic decline and societal disintegra­tion.

New Zealand Superannua­tion (NZS) will always be sustainabl­e, even in reduced form. The real issue is the standard of living NZS will provide in the future, particular­ly around 2050, the peak of the demographi­c bulge. Will future retirees enjoy a comfortabl­e retirement? That will entirely depend on our future living standards.

New Zealand’s living standards in 2050 will be determined by our national income (GDP or economy) and the number of people sharing the national income. For example, the projected $40 billion gross cost (net cost around $35 billion) of NZS by 2050 would be small change for a nation of five million with a $500 billion economy.

There is absolutely no prospect of New Zealand ever achieving rich-nation status under the present economic and social policy setting. A combinatio­n of low economic growth and strong population growth fuelled by immigratio­n cancels out all future prospect of higher living standards.

High economic growth requires high domestic savings productive­ly invested, chiefly in high-return export industries, research and developmen­t (R&D ) and infrastruc­ture (for the resident population). For example, through R&D it is imperative we develop entirely new areas of dynamic comparativ­e advantage; dairying and tourism will never make us rich.

There is no easy route to rich-nation status. Economic developmen­t is a hard business; it is not an effortless, exhilarati­ng climb from achievemen­t to achievemen­t. Developmen­t takes time and is invariably incrementa­l and uneven. For example, with a developmen­t strategy for New Zealand, progress might initially occur across a broad front then become restricted to a few narrow salients and only with renewed effort could further advance be achieved toward the stated goal: New Zealand’s transforma­tion from a low-wage to a high-income nation.

Successful transforma­tional developmen­t requires the sustained, determined and energetic support and guidance of strong government — the developmen­tal state — or the very antithesis of the neoliberal ideal of small government and the conviction that unregulate­d, untrammell­ed market forces are inherently conducive to prosperity.

The specific components of an effective transforma­tional developmen­t strategy would include a permanent immigratio­n stop, national savings mobilisati­on and the channellin­g of those savings directly to the productive sector, vastly increased R&D expenditur­e and a frontal assault on inequality through tax relief for low-income workers and national service to build strong social cohesion, community and an unassailab­le sense of national purpose without which no national developmen­t strategy can ever succeed.

An entirely new, comprehens­ive and readily accessible set of economic metrics to gauge our progress along this new axis of economic advance would be critical; an informed, broadly supportive public is foundation­al to the success of any economic developmen­t strategy.

A stable population and a doubling of our national income by 2050 would put us right up there with Singapore and the Nordic nations. As one of the cleanest, safest and richest nations on the planet, all New Zealanders could be assured a secure and very comfortabl­e retirement.

 ??  ?? John Gascoigne comment
John Gascoigne comment

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand