Güney Avrupa Refah Rejiminin Borç Krizi

7/24/2019 Gney Avrupa Refah Rejiminin Bor Krizi

1/38

* Sorumlu Yazar:Dr. skender GM alma Ekonoms ve Endstr lkler alannda yardmc doenttr. alma alanlar

arasnda reah devlet, yal reah, gelr dalm ve kentleme poltkas yer almaktadr. letm: Krklarel nverstes, ktsad ve

dar Blmler Fakltes, alma Ekonoms ve Endstr lkler Blm, Kayal Yerlekes, Koaz 39100 Krklarel. Elektronk

posta: [email protected]; [email protected], el: +90 537 278 8730.

** Mevlt ALIYER ktsat teors alannda aratrma grevlsdr. alma alanlar arasnda yen neo-klask sentez, ras-

yonel beklentler teors, sthdam, szlk, gelr dalm ve sosyal poltkalar yer almaktadr. letm: Krklarel nver-

stes, ktsad ve dar Blmler Fakltes, ktsat Blm, Kayal Yerlekes, Koaz 39100 Krklarel. Elektronk posta:[email protected]; [email protected] el.: +90 537 278 8730.

z2008 ylnda ABDde yaanan ve buradan tm dnyaya yaylan finansal krizi mteakiben2009un sonlarnda Avrupa bor krizi ortaya kmtr. Bu bor krizinin gereklemesinde roloynayan faktrler iki genel balk altnda toplanabilir: ncelikle, giderek artan oranda borykyle kar karya kalp krize giren lkeler ayn zamanda Gney Avrupa Refah Rejiminesahip olan lkelerdir (Yunanistan, talya, spanya ve Portekiz). Bu lkelerin kamu ve sosyalharcamalar, kii bana den milli geliri kendilerinden daha iyi konumda olan lkelerdendaha dktr. Ancak, bu lkeler kamu harcamalar ve sosyal harcamalar hususunda po-tansiyellerini nemli lde amtr. te yandan, dk verimlilie sahip bu lkeler glavro nedeniyle daha da verimsiz hle gelmi ve kredi olanaklarna ok kolay sahip olmala-rnn da yardmyla bor yklerini nemli lde arttrabilmitir. Sonuta bu lkelerden s-panya ve Portekiz likidite krizine girerken, Yunanistan ve talya temerrt krizine girmitir. Bualmada bu lkelerin refah rejimlerinin, krizde dorudan veya dolayl olarak nemli bir rolesahip olduu varsaymndan hareketle, yaadklar bor krizleri refah rejimleri balamndaincelenmektedir. Bu erevede, Gney Avrupa Refah Rejimine sahip lkelerin sosyal harca-malarndaki art analiz edilmekte ve bu art yaadklar bor krizi ile ilikilendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bor Krizi, Ekonomik Kriz, Gney Avrupa Refah Rejimi, Refah Rejimleri, SosyalHarcamalar.

skender GM*Krklareli niversitesi

Mevlt TATLIYER**

Krklareli niversitesi

Gney Avrupa Refah Rejiminin Bor Krizi

Ahlak DergisiTurkish Journal of Business Ethics MaysMay 2013 6(1) 1-37

TRKYE GAD www.isahlakidergisi.com DOI: 10.12711/tjbe.2013.6.1.0117


2/38

A h l a k D e r g i s i

2

ABDde etkler 2007 ylnda hssedlmeye balanan ve 2008 ylnda dernle-

en nansal krzn tm dnyaya yaylmasndan sonra, 2009un sonlarnda,

Avrupada br bor krz ortaya kmtr. Sz konusu krz, der Avrupa lke-lernn yan sra zellkle Avrupann Akdenze kys olan lkelern cdd br

eklde yaralamtr. Avrupann gneynde yer alan bu lkelern bozulan nan-

sal yaps, bu lkelerde byk mktarda nansal akte sahp merkez Avrupa

lkelerndek bankalar aracl le ktann tamamn da etklemtr. rnen,

krzden en ok etklenen Yunanstann nansal varlklarna sahp lkeler ara-

snda, Kta Avrupas lkeler, Fransa ve Almanya ba ekmektedr. Yunanstan

ve der sorunlu lkelern tbarlarnn ve kred grnmlernn cdd eklde

hasara uramas, sz konusu bankalar ve dolays le bu bankalarn at olduu

lkeler de cdd eklde etklem ve krzn temelde br Akdenz Krz del,

Avrupa Krz olmasna neden olmutur.

ABDde 2007 ylnda ortaya kan nansal krzn en ok etkled lkeler se

evre Avrupa lkeler olmutur. Bu lkelern en belrgn ortak zell Gney

Avrupa Refah Rejmne sahp olmalardr. Bu lkelern kamu ve sosyal har-

camalarnn gayr sa yurt haslaya (GSYH) oranlar, kendlernden daha

yksek k ba mll gelre sahp lkelerden yksek olmasa da, bu lkeler sz

konusu harcamalar potansyellernn zernde gerekletrm ve sonu olarak

cdd bte aklar vermtr.

Avrupada ortaya kan ve zellkle Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp l-

keler etkleyen bor krznn temel nedenler arasnda; parasal brlktek so-

runlar, gevek ml dsplnn varl ve yeterl denetmn olmamas, ekonomk

aktrlern gerenden azla rsk stlenerek ar borlanmalar, bankaclk ss-

temndek zayflklar, konut sektr sorunlar, yetersz ktsad byme, yksek

szlk oranlar, kalc tcaret dengeszlkler ve yetersz rekabet gc ve Euro

blgesndek ynetm sorunlar gsterlmtr (Kbrtolu, 2011; Nelson, Bel-

kn, Mx ve Wess, 2012; Yang ve Le, 2012).

Bu temel nedenlern yannda, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern

sosyal reah harcamalarnn yksekl ve bu lkelern ml sorumsuzluklar da

baz yazarlar tarandan vurgulanmaktadr (Lemeux, 2013; anner, 2013; Yang

ve Le, 2012). Krugman (2012a) se, bor krznn dda edld gb Avrupann


3/38

GM, TATLIYER/ Gney Avrupa Refah Rejiminin Bor Krizi

3

yoksullara prm veren sosyal reah devlet poltkas harcamalarnn yksekl-

nden ve ml sorumsuzluktan kaynaklanmadn, temel problemn sstemn

ley n gerekl altyapnn oluturulmadan poltkalarn uygulamaya konul-masndan kaynaklandn dda etmektedr.

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern bor krz ve sosyal reah pol-

tkalar arasndak lky lke rne zernden aklayan etl aratrmalar

mevcuttur. Matsagans (2011), Yunanstann sosyal koruma/gvenlk sstem

le bor krz arasndak lky elkl bulduunu ade etmekle brlkte sosyal

koruma/gvenlk harcamalarnn devletn ml krze grmesne neden oldu-

unu belrtmektedr (s. 501-512). Schwartz (2013), spanyann yaad borkrz le sosyal koruma/gvenlk sstem arasndak lky ncelem ve reah

uygulamalarnn srdrlemez olduunu ade etmtr (s. 275-285). Cencg

(2012), talyann bor yknn artmasn 1970lerden ber hzla artan kamu

harcamalarna balamaktadr (s. 21-22). Glatzer (2012), Portekz le lgl yap-

t aratrmada, otorter ynetmden demokrasye ge srecnde Portekzde

devletn bykl ve kapsamnda byk br dnm yaandn, k ba

mll gelrn dk olmasna ramen, OECD ve AB yes lkelere gre kamu

harcamalarnn yksek oranda arttn ortaya koymaktadr.

Ancak, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern kamu harcamalar hlen

Kurumsal/muhaazakr ve Sosyal Demokrat Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern

kamu harcamalarndan daha az, Lberal Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern se

zerndedr (OECD, 2009). Esasnda, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp l-

kelern kamu harcamalarnn azla olmas grnrde sorun tekl etmese de

kamu gelrlernn dk olmasndan dolay ktsad adan salkl grnme-

mektedr (OECD, 2013). Zra bu lkelern harcamalar gelrlernden ok ol-

duundan devletn bykl ya da kklnn yannda ne kadar verml

olduklar sorununu da berabernde getrmektedr.

Bu lkeler Kta Avrupas lkelerne oranla daha dk retm vermllne sa-

hptr. Bu adan ortak para brmne ge, bu lkeler le kendlernden ok

daha gl lkeler arasnda br tr haksz rekabetn olumasna yol am ve bu

lkelern d tcaret hadlernn hzla bozulmasna neden olmutur. te yandan,

bu lkeler gl avro ve dk az oranlar sayesnde ok kolay br eklde


4/38


4

ve ucuza borlanabldklernden, borlanmadak artlar gz ard etmlerdr.

Bor verenler se Avrupa Brl lkelern ayr ayr deerlendrmekten zyade,

br btn olarak dnm ve gl Avrupa lkeler le nspeten zay Avrupalkeler arasnda br ayrm yapmamtr. Kresel nans krznn balamas le

brlkte de kresel rsk tahndak belrgn azal, sz konusu lkelern durum-

larna daha gerek br eklde baklmasn salam ve bu lkelern grdkler

ekonomk krzler de bor yklernn daha da artmasna neden olmutur.

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelerde devletn patrmonyal eklde

alglan tkelc-klentalst1br reah devletnn varln da ortaya karmtr.

Bundan dolay, bu lkelerde yaplan sosyal harcamalarn sem baarsnn ma-nplasyonu n kullanlmas br menaat lksne neden olmutur (Ferrera,

1996). Bu durum Akdenz lkelernn sosyal devlet olmad, daha ok sosyal

yardm devlet olduu tartmalarn berabernde getrm ve bundan dolay

Akdenz lkeler kayrmacln, yandaln ve partzanca tutumlarn merke-

z olarak temayz etmtr (Kesgn, 2013, s. 108). Ayrca, Akdenz lkelernde

kaytd ekonomnn yaygn olmas, ncelkle sosyal poltka alannda byk

skntya neden olmakta (Kesgn, 2013, s. 97) ve dolayl olarak sosyal harcama-

lar artrmaktadr.

Bunun yannda, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelerdek klentalst

reah devletnn varl brokratk ve haklara dayal br reormun yaplmasn

engellerken, yksek destekler kl br emek pyasasna yol amaktadr. Bu du-

rum hem kamu nansman kaynaklarnn tketlmesne hem de kaytd eko-

nomnn yaygnlamasna neden olmaktadr (Gough, 2008, s. 232-233). Bun-

dan dolay, Gney Avrupada klentalst anlayn yaygnl sosyal poltkalarn

nansmannn nndek en byk engellerden br olarak ortaya kmaktadr.

Bylece grlmektedr k sz konusu Akdenz lkelernn krze grmesnn

hem nansman hem de malyet boyutu bulunmaktadr. Bu lkeler, br tarafan

cdd eklde borlanrken, der tarafan da elde ettkler kaynaklar yatrm-

lardan zyade kamu borlar, kamu harcamalar ve sosyal harcamalar n kul-

lanma elmnde olmutur. Sonuta br tarafan borluluk sevyeler artarken,

1 Klentalzm, ksaca baml le hams (mter-patronaj) arasndak lky ade eden ve semen ktlesne ayrcalkl hzmet verensyasetlern davranlar n kullanlmaktadr.


5/38


5

der tarafan da bor deme kapasteler gnden gne azalmtr. Krzn ortaya

kmas le brlkte ekonomlernn ok az byme ya da klme elmne

grmes, kamu aklarnn ve bor yklernn de neml lde ykselmesneneden olmutur.

Bu almada, ncelkle Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmnn genel zellklernden

bahsedlmekte ve bu rejme sahp lkelern zaman ersnde yaad dn-

m ncelenmektedr. Ardndan bu lkelern yaad bor krz Gney Avrupa

Reah Rejm eksennde deerlendrlerek, bu lkelern bor krz sosyal har-

camalardak demeler yoluyla analz edlmektedr. Son olarak bu lkelern

sz konusu bor krznden ne eklde kablecekler bte denges ve sthdampyasas zelnde tartlmaktadr.

Gney Avrupa Refah Rejm

Reah rejmlernn snflandrlmasnda Espng-Andersene at Refah Kaptalz-

mnn Dnyas (Te Tree Worlds of Welfare Captalsm) sml esern ok

neml br yer bulunmaktadr. Espng-Andersen, bu almasnda reah rejm-lern Lberal,Kurumsal/muhaazakr ve Sosyal Demokrat Reah Rejmolmak

zere l br snflandrmaya tab tutmutur (Espng-Andersen, 1990, s. 3).

Espng-Andersenn bu eser, akademk camada byk lg grm ve karla-

trmal reah devlet alannda, en ok tartlan, en ok atfa bulunulan al-

ma hlne gelmtr (Lebred ve Mau, 2008, s. xx). Espng-Andersenle brlkte

reah rejm modelleme almalar da yaygnlk kazanmtr2 (Abrahamson,

1999, s. 400; Arts ve Gelssen, 2002, s. 151-153).

Tablo 1.Espng-Andersenn Refah Rejm Snflandrmas

Lberal Muhafazakr Sosyal Demokrat

ABD Almanya sve

svre Fransa Norve

Japonya talya Danmarka

Kanada Avusturya Fnlandya

Avustralya Belka Hollanda

Espng-Andersen (1990, s. 74)

2 Abrahamson (1999) reah devlet rejm modelleme akmn welfare modellng busnesseklnde ade etmektedr.


6/38


6

Espng-Andersen, sz konusu snflandrmasnda Akdenz lkelernden sadece

talyaya yer verm ve onu da Muhaazakr Reah Rejm olarak ntelendrmtr

(Espng-Andersen, 1990, s. 74). Espng-Andersenn snflandrmas bu alanda ncntelkte olmu3akat daha sonrak almalarda sz konusu snflandrmann eksk

olduuna ynelk brok eletr yaplm ve brok arkl snflandrma nerlmtr

(Arts ve Gelssen, 2002; Bonol, 1997; Korp ve Palme, 1998; Navarro ve Sh, 2001).

Bu erevede lk ortaya atlan alternat snflandrmalardan brs Stephan

Lebreda attr. Lebreda (1992) gre, Gney Avrupa lkeler Latn Blges4

sm altnda kend bana ayr br reah devlet rejm oluturmaktadr. Bu s-

nfa; spanya, Portekz, Yunanstan ve br dereceye kadar da talya le Fransabulunmaktadr. Bu lkeler baz alardan, Kalnt Reah Rejmanlayna ve

dk dekomodfkasyon5sevyesne sahp olan Anglo-Sakson lkelerne ben-

zeseler de, ale ve klsenn neml rol oynad br reah gelenene sahptrler.

Ferrera (1996, s. 20) da Lebred gb Gney Avrupa lkelernn ayr br reah

rejmne sahp olduunu ne srm ve bu rejm Gney Avrupa Model (So-

uthern Model) olarak smlendrmtr. Ferreraya gre bu sn oluturan Yu-

nanstan, talya, Portekz ve spanyann kendne has zellkler bulunmaktadr.

Bu lkelern gc pyasas, Kta Avrupas Reah Rejmne gre radkal b-

mde arkldr ve gl br tarmsal ynelm gsterr. Ayrca, skandnav lke-

lernn aksne bu lkelerde tam sthdam gelene bulunmamaktadr (Kesgn,

2013, s. 97). Gney Avrupa lkeler daha gelm Kuzey komularn reah

devlet uygulamalarnda yakalamaya almakta ve Gney Avrupa lkelernde

ale ve klse sosyal yardmlarda neml br rol oynamaya devam etmektedr

(Person, 1998, s. 780). Bu lkelern anayasalarnda modern reah devletneynelk gl vurgular yaplmasna ramen, bu szler ok da azla hayata ge-

rlememektedr. Bu da Gney Avrupa reah devletlern Kurumsal Vaatler (Ins-

ttutonalsed Promses) Rejmleryapmaktadr (Lebred, 1992).

3 Reah devletne ynelk snflandrma almalar Wlensky ve Lebauxa (1958) kadar gtrleblr. Wlensky ve Lebaux, yazm

olduklar makalede reah anlaylar arasnda br ayrm yapmlar ve bu erevede kalnt ve kurumsal reah devlet anlayndan

bahsetmlerdr. Yne bu konuda br alma yapan tmuss (1974) reah devletlern, Kalnt Reah Model, Endstryel Baar

Model ve Kurumsal Yenden Datmc Model olmak zere l br tasne tab tutmutur.

4 Latn Rm.

5 Commodcaton metalatrma anlamna gelmekte ken, Decommodcaton da metalktan uzaklatrma ya da metalksevyesn azaltma anlamna gelmektedr.


7/38


7

Bu lkelerde gelr kames sstem cdd bmde paral ve bozuk br yapya sahptr.

Bu durum da neml derecede kutuplamaya neden olmaktadr. rnen emekllk

maalar, yksek sevyeden hmal edleblr dzeye kadar nmektedr. te yandanbu lkeler salk hzmetlernde muhaazakr gelenekten ayrlarak, br nebze de olsa

evrensel br salk sgortas sstem kurmutur (Ferrera, 1996, s. 19).

Kautto (2002, s. 53) da reah devletlern hzmet yaklamna ve transer yak-

lamna gre snflandrmaya almtr. Bu erevede, hzmet yaklamna

sahp olan lkelern karakterstk zell; yksek hzmet ve de ortalama veya

yksek transer harcamas dzeyne sahp olmalardr. Bu yaklama sahp olan

lkeler se sve, Danmarka, Norve, Fnlandya, Fransa ve son zamanlardaAlmanya ve Brtanyadr (Kautto, 2002, s. 62). ranser yaklamna sahp l-

keler se yksek transer ve ortalama veya dk hzmet harcamas dzeyne

sahptr. Bu gruptak lkeler se Belka, Hollanda, Avusturya ve talyadr.

Kauttonun (2002) snflandrmasnda nc grup se dk yaklamdr. Bu

gruptak rlanda, Yunanstan, Portekz ve spanyann hem transer hem de

hzmet harcamalar dzey dktr (Kautto, 2002, s. 62). Buna gre, Gney

Avrupa reah rejmlernde, talya harcnde, hem transer hem de hzmet har-camalar dk dzeydedr.

Gney Avrupa Refah Rejmlernde Sosyal Harcamalar

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp Yunanstan, spanya, talya ve Portekzn

1980 ncesnde reah rejm erevesnde gerekletrd sosyal harcamalarn

dzey, genel anlamda der reah rejmlerne sahp lkelerden yksek deldr.Hatta sz konusu drtl snflandrma erevesnde baklacak olursa, Gney

Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern sosyal harcamalarnn ortalama dzey,

Sosyal Demokrat ve Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlerne sahp lkelern ortalama-

larndan dkken, sadece Lberal Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern ortalama-

sndan yksektr (OECD, 2012).

te yandan, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelerde reah rejm 1980

ncesne oranla neml br dnm yaamtr. Bu dnemde, der reah re-


8/38


8

jmlernn sosyal harcama dzeylernn olduka gersnde sosyal harcama d-

zeylerne sahp olan bu lkelerde, sosyal harcamalarn GSYHye oran daha

sonrak yllarda hzla artmtr. Sz konusu srete der reah rejmne sahplkelern de sosyal harcama dzey artm olsa da bu art oranlar, Gney

Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelerdek art oranlarnn ok gersnde kal-

mtr. Bylece 1980l yllarda sz konusu oranda Lberal Rejme sahp lke-

ler geen Gney Avrupa lkeler, 2000l yllarla brlkte, Sosyal Demokrat ve

Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlerne sahp lkelerle neredeyse ayn sosyal harcama

dzeylerne ulamtr (OECD, 2012).

Tablo 2.Kamu Sosyal Harcamalarnn GSYHye Oran (%)

Refah Rejm-lke 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Lberal Rejm

Avustralya 10.28 12.12 13.13 16.19 17.32 16.52 16.09 16.02

Kanada 13.66 16.99 18.12 18.89 16.50 17.02 16.94 16.86

rlanda 16.66 21.31 14.92 15.68 13.27 15.76 15.75 16.31

ngltere 16.54 19.44 16.75 19.91 18.60 20.57 20.36 20.54

ABD 13.16 13.11 13.46 15.38 14.46 15.83 15.99 16.20

Yen Zelanda 17.04 17.66 21.52 18.67 19.14 18.12 18.95 18.39

Ortalama 14.55 16.77 16.32 17.45 16.55 17.30 17.35 17.39

Sosyal Demokrat Rejm Danmarka 24.76 23.24 25.14 28.92 25.68 27.21 26.59 26.10

Fnlandya 18.07 22.59 24.29 30.87 24.34 26.12 25.91 24.93

Norve 16.85 17.77 22.31 23.28 21.31 21.71 20.44 20.80

sve 27.16 29.49 30.23 32.04 28.43 29.08 28.41 27.30

Ortalama 21.71 23.27 25.49 28.78 24.94 26.03 25.34 24.78

Muhafazakr Rejm

Avusturya 22.39 23.71 23.76 26.56 26.73 27.37 26.97 26.42

Belka 23.52 26.04 24.88 26.27 25.42 26.45 26.42 26.35

Fransa 20.76 26.00 24.87 28.50 27.72 28.97 28.59 28.40

Almanya 22.11 22.53 21.73 26.76 26.56 27.23 26.15 25.16

Hollanda 24.79 25.34 25.57 23.81 19.78 20.71 20.30 20.08

svre 13.80 14.70 13.45 17.46 17.85 20.19 19.19 18.52

Ortalama 21.23 23.05 22.38 24.89 24.01 25.15 24.61 24.15

Gney Rejm

Yunanstan 10.24 15.97 16.47 17.34 19.16 20.96 21.26 21.33

talya 17.98 20.81 19.95 19.90 23.28 24.98 25.09 24.86

Portekz 9.92 10.10 12.50 16.48 18.88 22.90 22.94 22.52

spanya 15.55 17.78 19.95 21.41 20.44 21.41 21.40 21.58

Ortalama 13.42 16.16 17.22 18.78 20.44 22.56 22.67 22.57

Genel Ortalama 15.63 17.30 17.62 19.46 18.89 19.79 19.53 19.26

(OECD, 2012)


9/38


9

rnen, 1980den 2007 ylna kadar, Lberal, Sosyal Demokrat ve Muhaazakr

Reah Rejmlerne sahp lkelern sosyal harcamalarndak art oran srasy-

la; %19,5, %14,1 ve %13,8 olarak gereklerken, bu oran Gney Avrupa Re-ah Rejmnde ortalama olarak %68dr (OECD, 2012). Gney Avrupa Reah

Rejmne sahp lkelerde sosyal harcamalarn bu kadar hzl ykselmesne bu

lkelern reah kurumlarnn ge olgunlamas, ABye uyum srecnde yaanan

gelmeler ve demograk nedenler gsterleblr.

Gney Avrupa Refah Rejmlernde Borluluk Durumu

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmndek lkelern borluluk durumlarna bakld

zaman, Yunanstan le talyann, spanya le de Portekzn benzer zellkler

gsterd grlmektedr. spanya le Portekzn kamu borluluk dzeyler Kta

Avrupas lkelerne gre azla yksek deldr. Portekz 2008 nansal krznden

nce %60lar dzeynde br kamu borcuna sahpken, bu oran krzn etklern

gstermes le brlkte %80ler dzeyne kmtr. spanyann genel borluluk

dzey Portekzden de daha y durumda olmutur. Krzden nce %30lar d-

zeynde br kamu borcuna sahp olan spanyada, krzden sonra borluluk d-

zey %50lere kmtr (OECD, 2011). Grld gb, spanya ve Portekzn

borluluk dzeyler ok yksek deldr ve bu lkeler daha ok br lkdte krz

yaamaktadr.

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp der lkelerden Yunanstan ve talyada

yaananlar se daha arkldr. Bu k lkenn borluluk dzeyler krz ncesn-

de de olduka yksek br dzeyde seyretmtr. ablo 3ten grlece ze-

re, 2000l yllarda talyann genel borluluk dzey %90larda ken, bu oran

Yunanstanda %100ler dzeynde gereklemtr. Yaanan krzden sonra

se her k lkenn borluluk dzey daha da artarak, 2010 ylnda talyada

%100lere, Yunanstanda se %140lara ulamtr. Grld zere, bu k G-

ney Avrupa Reah Rejm de sz konusu borluluk dzeyler le br temerrt

krzyaamaktadr (OECD, 2011).


10/38


10

Tablo 3.Kamu Borcunun GSYHye Oran (%)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fnlandya 43.5 41.9 38.2 35.6 31.2 29.5 37.5 41.7

Fransa 51.9 52.6 53.3 52.1 52.1 53.4 61.2 67.4

Almanya 38.5 39.9 40.8 41.2 39.6 39.6 44.2 44.4

Yunanstan 105.8 108.6 110.6 107.7 105.7 110.6 127.0 147.8

zlanda 33.3 28.2 19.4 24.8 23.2 44.2 87.5 81.3

rlanda 26.9 25.3 23.5 20.3 19.8 28.0 47.1 60.7

talya 96.7 96.3 97.7 97.5 95.6 98.1 106.8 109.0

Hollanda 43.0 43.8 43.0 39.2 37.6 50.1 49.7 51.8

Norve 21.3 18.4 17.2 12.5 11.7 13.9 26.4 26.1

Portekz 58.3 61.0 66.2 67.7 66.6 68.9 78.7 88.0

spanya 40.7 39.3 36.4 33.0 30.0 33.7 46.0 51.7

sve 47.7 46.6 46.2 42.2 36.4 35.6 38.1 33.8

svre 28.3 28.1 28.1 25.2 23.2 22.4 20.7 20.2

rkye 62.2 56.6 51.1 45.5 39.6 40.0 46.4 42.9

Brtanya 38.7 40.0 43.5 43.2 42.7 61.1 75.3 85.5

ABD 34.9 36.0 36.1 36.0 35.7 40.2 53.6 61.3

(OECD, 2011).

Gney Avrupa Refah Rejmnn Bor Krz

2008 kresel ekonomk krznden sonra dnyann ger kalan yaralarn yava

yava ya da hzl br eklde sararken, zellkle 2009un sonlarndan tbaren

Avrupann zerndek kara bulutlar younlamaya balad. Avrupada dern-

leen krzn merkezndek lkeler se PIGS lkeler olarak anlan; Yunanstan,

spanya, Portekz ve talya d. Bu lkelern ortak zell Avrupann gney e-

pernde bulunmalar ve Gney Avrupa Refah Rejmnesahp olmalaryd. Sz

konusu lkelern, yaanan krzn yaralarn saramamas ve hatta yaralarnn

daha da dernlemes, bu lkelern nansal varlklarna sahp olan der Avru-pa lkelern de olumsuz br eklde etklem ve krz tm Avrupay az veya ok

etks altna almtr.

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern dern br krze grmelernn

arka plannda kukusuz borluluk sevyelernn yksek olmas ve bor veren-

lern zellkle yaanan krzlerden sonra bu lkelern rsklerne ynelk algla-

rnn neml lde bozulmas yatmaktadr. Fakat daha en bata bu lkelern

sz konusu borluluk sevyelerne ulama neden nedr? ablo 6dan grld


11/38


11

zere, zellkle Yunanstann ve talyann bor ykler der Avrupa lkelerne

oranla ok yksek sevyelerdedr. Portekz ve spanyann grece daha makul

sevyelerde bor ykler bulunsa da bu lkelern de bor deme kablyetlernoktasnda cdd tedrgnlkler mevcuttur. Zra her k lkede de gc verm-

ll6(World Economc Forum, 2012, s. 13) ve GSYH byme oranlar olduka

dk sevyelerde seyretmektedr7(World Bank, 2013).

Bu adan, sz konusu Gney Avrupa lkelernn yapsal zellklerne elmekte

ayda vardr. Bu lkelern kendlerne has arkl zellkler bulunsa da baz alardan

bu lkeler brbrlerne benzemektedr. En bata, Avrupann kuzey le gney ara-

snda gelmlk dzey bakmndan tarhsel br ayrma sz konusudur. Bu ere-vede, Kuzey Avrupa ya da Kta Avrupas lkeler lk nce sanayleen ve gerek eko-

nomk gerekse de syas gelmn lk nce tamamlayan lkeler olmutur. Gney

Avrupa lkeler se sanayleme noktasnda Kuzey Avrupa lkelern olduka ger-

den takp etm, demokratkleme hususunda da benzer br ynelm serglemtr.

Bylece hem ekonomk hem kltrel hem de syas adan Gney Avrupa lkeler,

Kuzey Avrupa lkelernn gersnde kalmlar ve onlar takp etmeye almtr.

Blnd zere, sosyal devlet anlay br ekonomk ve demokratk gelm-lk gstergesdr. Buna gre, bell ekonomk ve kltrel gelmlk sevyesne

ulam devletler, breylernn sosyal hak ve sorumluluklarn belrl llerde

tanmakta ve belrlemektedr. te reah devlet anlay da bylesne br atmos-

erde ortaya kmtr.

Modern dnemde lk rneklerne Bsmarck Almanyasnda aht olunan reah

devlet uygulamalar8daha sonra hzla der lkelere de yaylm ve knc Dn-

ya Savana kadar emekllk olanaklarndan szlk sgortasna kadar brok6 Kresel Rekabet Raporu 2012-2013e gre spanya 36, Portekz 49uncu srada yer almaktadr. Yne rapora gre talya 42nc

srada yer alrken Yunanstan 96nc srada yer almaktadr. Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp bu lkeler, makroekonomk

dengeszlkler, ml ermlere ulama yeterszl, kat gc pyasalar ve yenlk uygulama ekskl bakmndan zay rekabet

lkeler kategorsnde deerlendrlmektedr.

7 Portekz 2011 ve 2012 yllarnda srasyla %-1,6 ve %-3,2 orannda, spanya se %0,4 ve %-1,6 orannda bymtr. Gney Avrupa

Reah Rejmnn der temslcler olan Yunanstan -7,1 ve %-6,4 orannda, talya se %0,4 ve %-2,4 orannda bymtr. 2012 yl

baz alndnda Akdenz lkelernn negat byme gerekletrdkler, dolaysyla ekonomk olarak kldkler grl mektedr.

Bunun yannda, 2011 ve 2012 yllarnda srasyla ABDnn %1,8 ve %2,2, nglterenn %1,0 ve %0,3, Almanyann %3,0 ve %0,7,

Avusturyann %2,7 ve %0,8 orannda bydkler grlmektedr.

8 Modern a ncesnde reah devlet uygulamas olarak dnleblecek brok uygulama yaplmtr. rnen, 7. yzyl gb

erken br tarhte, lk Arabstan hales Ebu Bekrn Hre halkna ynelk htab bu konuya k tutmaktadr: Yalanp, hasta veya

sakat olup alma gcn kaybetm muhtalar haznece maaa balanacaklardr. Daha sonrak Haleler dnemnde de byles

uygulamalarn devam ett ve Hale mer zamannda yoksul, kr ve czzamllara da maa balad kaydedlmektedr (Yener,2009, s. 49).


12/38


12

sosyal haklar vatandalara tannmtr. knc Dnya Savandan sonrak s-

rete se nglterede hazrlanan Beverdge Raporunun mhmandarlnda ve

Keynes devlet poltkalarnn uygun atmosernde9reah devlet altn anyaamtr. Bu dnemde, Kta Avrupas lkelernn sosyal harcamalar neml

lde art gstermtr. rnen, 1960 le 1975 yllar arasnda ou Avrupa

lkesnde ve der gelm lkelerde sosyal harcamalarn GSYHye oran kye

katlanmtr (George, 1996). Bu yllar arasnda sz konusu lkelern yaadklar

hzl ekonomk byme de hesaba katlacak olursa, reah devlet uygulamalar-

nn ne eklde artt daha y anlalablr.

Sz konusu gelm lkelerdek reah devlet uygulamalarnn bu eklde yay-gnlk kazanmasnn arka plannda knc Dnya Savandan sonrak srete

bu lkelern yaad yksek sevyedek ekonomk byme ve buna paralel ola-

rak gerekletrdkler ak d tcarete ynelk poltkalarn neml br etks

bulunmaktadr. k dnya sava arasndak yllarda zellkle 1929 Ekonomk

Buhrannn da etksyle yce e kapanan bu lkeler, knc Dnya Savandan

sonra gerekl dersler alarak, br tarafan d tcaret serbestletrme yoluna

gtm, der tarafan da demokratklemeye hz vermtr. Yen kurulan IMF,

Dnya Bankas ve GA gb uluslararas kurulularn da yen ortaya kan

dnya dzennde neml katklar olmutur.10te bylece ortaya kan olumlu

ekonomk atmoser reah devlet uygulamalarnn da genlemesne zemn ha-

zrlamtr.

Gney Avrupa lkeler se sz konusu srete Kta Avrupas lkelerne gre

daha arkl br dnem yaamtr. Hl hazrda sanayleme dzey ve ekono-

mk sevye bakmndan Kta Avrupas lkelerne oranla daha ger br konumda

bulunan bu lkeler, knc Dnya Savandan sonra syas anlamda da Kta Av-

rupas lkelernden ayrmtr. Yunanstan, spanya ve Portekzde demokratk

olmayan ynetmler 1970l yllara kadar banda kalm ve bylece bu lke-

ler Kta Avrupasndan neml lde ayrmtr.

spanya ve Portekz arasnda ayrca neml benzerlkler bulunmaktadr. Bu k

9 Bu yllar Keynesn grlernn her yerde kalpler ve akllar ekllendrmeye balad yllard. (ownsend, 2002, s. 3).

10 Bununla brlkte, IMF ve Dnya Bankas gb kurulularn reah devlet uygulamalarna katksnn olumsuz olduuna lkn

grler de bulunmaktadr. rnen, zuca (2003), IMF ve Dnya Bankas gb uluslararas kurulularn stkrar ve yapsal uyumprogramlarn uygulayan lkelerde, gelr dalmnn bozulduunu ler srmektedr.


13/38


13

lke ortak br tarh gelenee ve gl br Katolk anlaya sahptr. Yunanstan

se Ortodoks gelenee sahptr. Fakat bu lkenn de toplumsal ve kltrel ya-

plarnda neml benzerlkler bulunmaktadr. Bu lke de monaryle yne-tlm ve daha nce denld gb Kta Avrupas lkelerne gre sanayleme

hususunda ger kalmtr (Gullen, Alvarez ve De Slva, 2002, s. 2). talyann bu

lkelerle kltrel ve ekonomk anlamda benzet noktalar bulunmakla brlk-

te bu lkeden arkl olduu noktalar da bulunmaktadr.

Yunanstan, syas anlamda 20. yzyl olduka alkantl germtr. 1967 y-

lnda br darbe yaadktan sonra, 1975 ylnda yaplan reerandumla monar

sona erdrlm ve demokratk br anayasa le demokratkleme yolunda nemladmlar atlmtr (Danapoulos, 1983). Yunanstann syas anlamda yaad

bu durumun br benzer spanya ve Portekzde de grlmtr k bu k lke-

nn syas deneym kend nde brbrne daha ok benzemektedr. spanyada

1936-1939 Savandan sonra ktdara gelen Franco, 1939-1975 yllar ara-

snda dktatrlk rejm kurmutur. spanya bu ynetm altnda knc Dn-

ya Savandan sonra hem syasal hem de ekonomk adan da kapal br g-

rnm arz etmtr. Franconun 1975te lmesnden sonra durum demeye

balam ve 1978 ylnda spanyada anayasann kabul le brlkte demokrasye

gelmtr (Moreno, 1997). Portekzde de benzer br sre yaanm ve 1975

ve 1976da yaplan semlerle dktatryal rejme son verlerek demokrasye ge-

lmtr (Bermeo, 1987).

talya se bu konuda br stsna olmakla brlkte bu lkede yaananlarla sz

konusu lkede yaananlar arasnda ok sayda ortak nokta bulunmakta-

dr. talyada 1922 ylnda Mussoln ynetmnde kurulan ast rejm varln

1946ya kadar srdrm ve bu tarhten sonra demokrasye gelmtr (Rus,

2012). Fakat son dnemlerde ortadan kaldrlan Glado dern devlet yaplan-

mas ant-demokratk kklern bu lkede ortadan kaybolmadnn br gster-

ges olmutur.

te 1970l yllarn ortalarnda dktatrlk rejmlernden kurtulan ve demok-

rasye ge yapan Yunanstan, spanya ve Portekz 1980l yllarda Avrupa

opluluuna grd. Bu lkeler n bylesne demokratk br at altna grmek,

dktatrlk rejmlernn kalntlarndan kurtularak demokratk br rejm olma-


14/38


14

nn gsterges sayldndan olduka nemlyd. Bu adan, sz konusu bu l-

keler kendlerne rnek olan der demokratk ve gelm Avrupa lkelernn

yolundan gtmeye alt. Bu erevede, o zamana kadar olduka zay br yap-da bulunan reah rejmlern de glendrmeye altlar.11

1960 le 1975 yllar arasnda Kta Avrupas lkelernde sosyal harcamalarn

GSYHye oran neredeyse kye katlanrken, zaten hlhazrda ok zay br re-

ah rejm olan Gney Avrupa lkelernde art oran ok daha mtevaz dzey-

lerde kalmtr. rnen, 1960ta sosyal harcamalarn GSYHye oran svete

%10,8, Almanyada %18,1 ken, bu oran Yunanstanda %7,1, spanyada se %7,8

olmutur. Daha sonrak srete reah rejmler daha da glenen Kta Avru-pas reah rejmlernde sosyal harcamalarn dzey neredeyse kye katlanm-

tr. Buna gre, 1975 ylna gelndnde bu oran svete %21,2ye ularken,

Almanyada %26,2ye kmtr. Demokrasye ge srecnde Yunanstan, s-

panya ve Portekzden ayran talya, sosyal harcama dzeyler hususunda da

arkl br grnm arz etmektedr. Sz konusu oran Yunanstan ve spanyada

srasyla ancak %8,6ya ve %11,8e geleblmtr. talyada se bu oran 1960ta

%13,1 olarak gereklem 1975e gelndnde tam %21e kmtr (George,

1996).

Bylece 1970l yllarda sz konusu lkelern reah rejmlernn olduka zay

olduu grlmektedr. Gney Avrupa lkeler de bu adan, 1980l yllarda

sosyal poltka hususunda neml atlmlar gerekletrmtr. Sosyal poltka

hususunda yaplan almalarda 1980l yllara kadar Gney Avrupa lkelerne

pek yer verlmezken, 1980l yllarla brlkte yava yava bu lkelerden sz edl-

meye balanmtr.12te 1980l yllara gelnnceye kadar olduka ger kalm

reah rejmne sahp bu lkeler daha sonrak yllarda a kapatablmek adna

sosyal poltkada neml deklklere gtmtr.

ablo 2de grld gb, 1980 ylna gelndnde sosyal harcamalarn GSYHye

oran Gney Avrupa reah rejmlernde ortalama %13,42 dzeynde gerekle-

11 Batdak mreffehln varlnn br bamllk meseles olduunu beyan eden grler (bamllk teors) de bulunmaktadr.

Bamllk teorsne gre sanaylem lkelerde ekonomk byme, azgelm lkelerden elde edlen art deerle gereklemektedr

(Smth, 1979).

12 Hatta Gney Avrupa Reah Rejm snflandrmas da 1990l yllarda ortaya atlmtr. Bu yllara kadar, sz konusu lkeler ya h

snflandrmaya dhl edlmem, ya da talyada olduu gb Kta Avrupas lkelernn korporatst reah rejm snflandrmasnadhl edlmtr.


15/38


15

mtr. Bu oran Sosyal Demokrat (%21,71) veya Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlernn

(%21,23) sahp olduklar ortalama oranlarn olduka altndadr. Fakat 2007 ylna

gelndnde, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern aradak a neredey-se kapattklar grlmektedr. Hatta bu lkeler lberal reah rejmne sahp lkelern

sosyal harcama dzeylern de olduka amtr. Buna gre, 2007 ylnda, sz konu-

su oran Sosyal Demokrat Reah Rejmne sahp lkeler n %24,78 olarak gerek-

lerken, ayn oran muhaazakrlarda %24,15, lberallerde %17,39, Gney Avrupa

lkelernde se %22,57 olmutur (OECD, 2012).

Bunun yannda, ablo 4te grld zere, 1995 ylnda, Lberal, Sosyal Demokrat

ve Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlerne sahp lkelern sosyal harcamalarnn kamu har-camalarna oran srasyla; %42,45, %48,45 ve yne %48,45 olarak gereklerken, bu

oran Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmnde ortalama %40,90 olarak gereklemtr. 2007

ylna gelndnde se Lberal, Sosyal Demokrat ve Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlerne

sahp lkelern sosyal harcamalarnn kamu harcamalarna oran srasyla; %45,29,

%51,98 ve %53,75 olarak gereklerken, bu oran Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmnde

ortalama %51,02 olarak gereklemtr. Buna gre, Lberal, Sosyal Demokrat ve

Muhaazakr Reah Rejmlerne sahp lkelern sosyal harcamalarnn kamu harca-

malarna oranlarnda 12 yl nde srasyla yaklak %6, %5 ve %8 art gerekler-

ken, bu oran Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmnde yaklak %20 olarak gereklemtr.

te yandan, Gney Akdenz lkelernn sosyal harcamalar der reah rejmle-

r sevyesne km olmakla brlkte sz konusu lkelern reah rejmler sunu-

lan sosyal olanaklarn kaltes ynnden hlen gelm deldr. Sstemlernde

ok cdd aksaklklar bulunmaktadr ve vermllk olduka dktr. Bu lke-

lern klentelstk br yapya sahp olmalar da bu durumda etkl olmutur. Ay-

rca, Yunanstanda olduu gb sosyal harcamalarn neml br ksmnn emek-

llk olanaklarna ayrlmas, sstem arpklatrmakta ve sosyal reah zernde

olumsuz etklere yol amaktadr. Hsl, bu lkelerdek sosyal harcamalarn

etkn olmad grlmektedr (Mylonas ve Masonneuve, 1999).

Bu noktada sosyal harcamalarn doasna elmekte ayda grmekteyz. Bln-

d gb, Mlton Fredmana gre para lks maldr. Buna gre, klern ellern


16/38


16

de tuttuklar para dzey, zengnlk sevyeler ykseldke artar.13Bu noktada bz de

devletn sunduu sosyal olanaklar lks mal olarak deerlendrecez. Sosyal olanak-

larn lks mal olduunu dda etmektek temel kast se, bu olanaklarn dorudanksel zengnlk/gelr sevyesne ve dolaysyla verg gelrlerne bal olmasndan kay-

naklanmaktadr. Zra sosyal harcamalar, zellkle akteryal denge gzetlmednde,

genel anlamda zengnlk/gelr sahb olandan varl/gelr olmayana transer eklnde

gereklemektedr. zellkle emekllk olanaklarnn sosyal harcamalarda neml br

yer gal etmes, sz konusu durumu daha belrgn hle getrmektedr.

Tablo 4.Sosyal Harcamalarn Kamu Harcamalarna Oran

Refah Rejm-lke 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Lberal Rejm

Avustralya 31,61 32,04 37,13 44,58 48,76 48,95 48,07 47,96

Kanada 32,66 35,30 36,47 39,36 39,92 43,26 42,97 42,70

rlanda 34,88 38,15 42,43 46,40 45,73 44,33

ngltere 35,89 42,63 40,33 45,79 47,26 46,60 46,13 45,8

ABD 38,98 35,75 36,37 41,41 42,58 43,72 44,37 44,29

Yen Zelanda 40,74 45,45 49,95 47,65 48,26 46,69

Ortalama 37,65 42,45 45,15 46,09 45,92 45,29

Sosyal Demokrat R.

Danmarka 45,6 48,77 47,83 51,55 51,53 51,25

Fnlandya 44,99 48,09 50,08 50,04 50,20 51,84 52,64 52,56

Norve 45,70 50,36 51,54 50,51 50,56

sve 49,32 51,61 54,00 53,90 53,57

Ortalama 48,45 50,00 52,23 52,14 51,98

Muhafazakr R.

Avusturya 45,21 44,68 46,13 47,14 51,27 54,55 54,61 54,50

Belka 44,54 47,50 50,34 51,70 50,58 54,29 54,36

Fransa 45,43 50,20 50,27 52,35 53,67 54,25 54,24 54,28

Almanya 48,86 58,87 58,14 57,70 57,76

Hollanda 44,91 44,26 46,56 42,17 44,78 46,23 44,58 44,35

svre 44,39 49,88 50,84 57,25 57,32 57,30Ortalama 48,45 51,85 53,5 53,79 53,75

Gney R.

Yunanstan 37,90 41,02 47,69 47,16 45,65

talya 44,07 41,74 37,70 37,88 50,39 51,86 51,49 51,93

Portekz 39,66 45,89 50,02 51,51 51,44

spanya 48,17 52,24 55,68 55,74 55,08

Ortalama 40,90 47,38 51,31 51,47 51,02

Genel Ortalama 45,06 48,59 50,78 50,83 50,51

(OECD, 2012).

13 Yan parann gelr esnekl brden byktr. Benzer eklde, Keynese gre de klern tasarru dzeyler zengnlk sevyelerykseldke artmaktadr.


17/38


17

Ayrca bu erevede, lkenn genel borluluk dzey ve buna bal olarak k

ba borluluk dzey de nem kazanmaktadr. Zra borla elde edlen, yan

speklat br ntelk arz eden zengnlk gerek br zengnlk deldr ve nansalpozsyonun sadece gelr/varlk dzeyne odaklanlmas gerekler yanstmak-

tan uzaktr.

Buna gre, ekonomk hacm ve zengnlk dzey dk olan br lke, emekllere

ya da szlere sunduu sosyal olanaklar n daha zengn lkelerdek vatanda-

lara gre vatandalarndan oransal olarak daha az verg toplamak durumun-

dadr. eork balamda, eer toplanan verg dzey ve bylece yaplan sosyal

harcama dzey zengn ve akr lkede ayn olursa, daha akr olan lkedekalanlarn katlandklar marjnal fedakarlk orandaha yksek olacaktr. Bu

durum da daha akr lkelerde sosyal olanaklarn sevyes zernde br bask

oluturmaktadr. Daha akr lkelerde grecel olarak daha dk verg yk

grlmes ve kayt d ekonomnn oransal olarak daha yksek olmas da bu

durumun doal br sonucudur.14

Sosyal olanaklarn lks mal olmasndan dolay, grecel olarak daha akr olan

lkelern belrl oranda sosyal harcama dzeyn tutturablmek adna vatanda-larndan daha ok verg toplayablmes grecel olarak daha zengn olan lke-

lere oranla daha zordur. Bu balamda, grece akr lkelern vatandalarndan

toplanan ayn dzeydek ekstra verglern marjnal edakarlk dzey grece

daha zengn lkelernkne gre daha yksektr.

Bylece grece akr olan lkelerde bte denklnn nkoul olduu durumda,

sosyal harcamalarn GSYHye oran grece zengn lkelere oranla daha dk

olmaldr. te yandan, kresellemenn neml lde artt ve bu durumunda verg oranlar zernde bask oluturduu br dnemde sosyal devletlern

14 te yandan, br lkenn k ba GSYH dzeynn ve zaman ndek dnmnn, der lkelere kyasla o lkenn zengnlk

sevyesnn belrlenmesnde kullanlmas sorunlu br yapya sahptr. lk olarak, k ba GSYH kurlarn demesyle, zellkle

devalasyon durumunda olduka demektedr. Szgelm br gecede lke %50 akrlemektedr(!). Bu durum da k ba

GSYHnn zengnlk lt olarak kullanlmasn olduka sorunlu hle getrmektedr. Bu noktada, SGPye gre k ba mll gelr

hesaplamas, belrl sorunlara sahp olmasna ramen, daha aydal br yaklam sunmaktadr. Fakat br lkenn br tarafan mll

gelr ykselrken, der tarafan da borluluk dzeynn ykselmes lkenn net zengnlk sevyesn detrmeyecektr. Bu adan,

mll gelr art borluluk artyla brlkte ncelenmeldr. te yandan, mll gelrn akm br byklk, borluluk dzeynn de

stok br byklk olmas karlatrma yapmay zorlatrmaktadr. Ayrca, sz konusu Gney Akdenz lkelernn 2000l yllarn

banda avroya gem olmas bu lkelern ekonomk grnmn ncelemey daha da zorlatrmtr. Sonu olarak, zengnlk

lt ve zaman nde zengnln dem lt olarak mll gelrn kullanlmas ksmen sorunludur. Bu adan kamu bor yk

harcamalar, gerekletren devletn pozsyonunu ve bylece zengnlk sevyesn gstermes asndan daha aydal br yaklamsunmaktadr.


18/38


18

geltrmeye alan Gney Avrupa lkeler n bu durum zellkle zordur15.

Zra verg rejmler lgl lkedek sosyal ve poltk aktrlere bal olmakla br-

lkte, lkelern verg ykler zernde belrl br orandan sonra doal br baskolutuu syleneblr.

Bu konu le lgl verlere bakld zaman resm netlemektedr. Danmarka

ve sve dnda ger kalan OECD lkelernde 2011 tbaryle verg gelrlernn

GSYHye oran %43n altndadr ve tm OECD lkeler n bu oran ortalama

olarak %35 dzeyndedr (OECD, 2013).

%35 orannn altnda olan 18 lkeden ablo 5te de grleblece gb 10 tanes

genel anlamda 1990l yllarda %35-40 arasnda zrvey grerek bu noktadan

sonra ne gemlerdr. Bu lkelerde k ba GSYH (KBMG- 2011 [SGP])

2011 tbaryle 30.000 dolar cvarnda ken Kanada ve rlanda 40.000 dolar-

dan azla k ba GSYHye sahptr. ablo 5tek ger kalan lkelern k ba

GSMHler se ortalama 27.000 dolar cvarndadr. Ger kalan 8 lke se Avust-

ralya, l, Japonya, Gney Kore, Mekska, svre, rkye ve ABDdr. Bu l-

kelerde tarh olarak verg gelrlernn GSYHye oran der lkelere kyasla ol-

duka dktr. Bu lkelerde sz konusu oran ortalama olarak 2007 ve 2011de%25 dzeyndedr. Bu lkeler ya kk devlet krn benmseyen neo-lberal

anlayn hkm olduu ve genel anlamda lberal reah rejmne sahp (Avust-

ralya, Japonya, Gney Kore, ABD, svre) zengn (k ba GSYH 41.600 dolar

[2011-SGP]) lkelerdr. Ya da grecel olarak akr olan (k ba GSYH 18.500

dolar (2011-SGP)) ve kaytd sthdamn yaygn olduu, zay reah rejmler-

ne sahp (l, Mekska, rkye) lkelerdr (OECD, 2013).

Bu orann 2011 tbaryle %35-43 arasnda olduu 12 lkeden 6s (Alman-ya, zlanda, Lksemburg, Hollanda, Slovenya, Brtanya) %35-40 bandndak

grece zengn (k ba GSYH Lksemburg har 36.500 dolar, Lksemburg

[87.000 dolar] [2011-SGP]) lkeler, ger kalan 6s (k ba GSYH 43.000 dolar

[2011-SGP]) da (Avusturya, Belka, Fnlandya, Fransa, talya, Norve) %40-

43 bandndak lkelerdr. Orann %43n zernde olduu Danmarkada bu

oran %48, svete se %45tr. Bu lkelern k ba GSYHs se 2011 tbaryle

15 Kreselleme le brlkte uluslararas rekabete ak hle gelen lkeler, verg rekabetne grerek verg oranlarn ok dk sevyelere

ndreblecekler br dbe yar ortaya karacak, bylece Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern sosyal devlet yapsnnetknl ve srdrleblrl bundan zarar grecektr.


19/38


19

42.000 dolar cvarndadr. Sz konusu 14 lke muhaazakr ya da sosyal de-

mokrat reah rejmne sahptr (Bu orann en yksek olduu 2 lke se beklen-

d gb sosyal demokrat reah rejmne sahptr).

lkelern verg yklerne genel anlamda bakldnda k temel karm yapla-

blmektedr. Buna gre, neo-lberal poltka zleyen lkelerde verg yk (%25

cvar) der lkelere oranla olduka dktr. kncs, verg yk %40n ze-

rnde olan lkeler belrgn eklde verg yk %35-40 arasnda olan lkelerden

daha zengndr. ncs, verg yk %35n altnda ve %30 cvarnda olan

ablo 5tek lkelern Portekz har heps genel olarak 1990l yllarda %35 la

%40 arasnda zrvey grdkten sonra ne gemlerdr. Drdncs, vergyk %35n altnda olan lkeler belrgn bmde der lkelere oranla daha

akrdr.

Buna gre, neo-lberal poltka zleyen lberal reah rejmne sahp lkeler ha-

r, genel anlamda lkelern zengnlk sevyes arttka verg yklernn artt

syleneblr. Yne k ba GSYHs (Kanada ve rlanda har) belrl br dzeyn

(33.000 dolar) altnda olan lkeler %35n zernde br verg ykn grdkten

sonra ne gemlerdr. Sz konusu oran 2000l yllarda %30lar dzeyndestkrar kazanmtr (OECD, 2013).

Elde ettmz bu sonular, grece daha akr lkelern verg toplama hususun-

da grece daha zengn lkelere gre lernn daha zor olmas gerekt ve verg

ykler zernde belrl br orandan sonra doal br bask olutuu eklndek

ddalarmz desteklemektedr.

Tablo 5.

Verg gelrler/GSYH Zrve (Yl) 2007 2011 KBMG

Kanada 36,732 (1997) 33,054 31,01 41559

Estonya 36,283 (1995) 31,428 32,802 23625

rlanda 34,755 (1994) 30,927 27,635 43670

sral 37,187 (1997) 36,259 32,626 29830

Yen Zelanda 36,219 (1995) 34,666 31,676 32163

Polonya 38,784 (1993) 34,772 31,712 22167

Slovakya 40,313 (1995) 29,475 28,817 25193

Yunanstan 36,184 (1996) 32,531 31,242 25309

Portekz 32,475 (2008) 32,415 31,263 25264

spanya 37,288 (2007) 37,288 31,578 32081

(OECD, 2013)


20/38


20

Gney Avrupa reah rejmne sahp lkelerde 1980l yllardan tbaren oransal

olarakneml lde artmaya balayan sosyal harcamalarn nansmann, bu

lkelern verg gelrlern sosyal harcamalarn nansman n yetecek ldearttramayacaklar n, daha ok borlanmayla gerekletrlm olmas gerek-

mektedr.

statstkler bu dday dorulamaktadr. ablo 6da grld zere, Gney

Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern kamu bor yklernn 1980l yllar-

dan tbaren neml lde ykseld grlmektedr.16rnen, Yunanstann

kamu bor yk 1980de sadece %24,6 ken bu oran 1980l yllarda trmana

geerek 1990da %89,1 bulmutur. 2008 kresel krznden nce de %100nzernde olan bor yk, krzle brlkte hem malyetlern artmas hem de

GSYHnn brbrn zleyen yllar boyunca dmes yznden 2010 tbaryle

%144e kmtr.

talya, der Gney Avrupa Reah Rejm lkelerne oranla daha erken sa-

naylem ve daha olgun br reah rejmne sahp olmutur. Bu durumla ve

talyann sosyal harcama dzeynn 1970l yllarda der Gney Avrupa Reah

Rejm lkelerne gre yksek olmasna paralel bmde, talyann kamu boryknn 1970l yllarda trmana get ve ykseln 1980l yllarda da sr-

drd ablo 6dan grlmektedr. Yunanstan gb, talyada da kamu bor

yk kresel krz ncesnde %100n zernde seyretm ve kresel krzden

sonra daha da ykselmtr.

Portekz ve spanyada 1980l yllarda kamu bor ykler trmana gemtr.

Sz konusu k lkedek yksek szlk, dk vermllk, bamllk orann-

dak artlar ve olumsuz demograk dnm ve dk byme oranlar bulkelerle lgl beklentler bozmutur. Yne belrtmek gerekr k Yunanstan ve

talyann yaad bu krz, benzer zellklere sahp olan spanya ve Portekzn

gelece le lgl beklentlern olumsuz olmasna neden olmutur.

Grld zere, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern 1980lerden

tbaren neml dzeyde arttrdklar sosyal harcama dzeyler le yne bu yl-

larda artan kamu bor ykler arasnda br uyum bulunmaktadr. Bu erevede,

16 Sz konusu yllar ayn zamanda nansal ve ekonomk serbestlemenn ve kresellemenn artt yllar olmakla brlkte, budnmn kamu malyes zernde dolayl br etks bulunmaktadr.


21/38


21

k ba mll gelr sevyeler le sosyal harcama dzeyler karlatrldnda

yle br resm ortaya kmaktadr:

Tablo 6.Selm lkelern Kamu Borcu / GSYH Oran

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010

Yunanstan 10.2 18.8 24.6 89.1 108.9 110.9 144.0

talya 32.8 30.9 53.5 96.3 105.9 105.8 117.5

Portekz 15.9 17.0 30.5 57.3 48.5 62.8 83.1

spanya 30.0 14.7 16.4 42.6 59.3 43.0 63.5

Norve 29.5 23.6 47.3 28.9 34.2 49.1 54.3

sve 27.8 26.8 39.3 41.2 53.2 50.4 41.7

Fnlandya 12.8 10.2 11.0 14.1 43.8 41.7 50.0

Fransa 22.1 12.4 20.7 35.2 57.3 66.4 84.2Almanya 18.8 17.4 30.0 41.0 59.7 68.0 78.8

(Renhart ve Rogoff, 2009).

1980de Yunanstann sosyal harcama dzey %10,24 ken k ba mll gelr

6509 dolar d. Kamu bor yk se %24,6 d. Ayn ylda olgunlam ve mo-

del olarak gsterlen br reah rejmne sahp sven sosyal harcama dzey

%27,16 ken k ba mll gelr ablo 7de grld gb 15.739 dolar d.

Kamu bor yk se %39,3 dolaynda d (OECD, 2008, 2012).

Aradan geen 35 yllk sre sonunda, Yunanstann sosyal harcama dzey ne-

redeyse kye katlanarak %20,96ya kt. K ba mll gelr de 25.562 dolara

ykseld. Kamu bor dzey de benzer eklde %111e ykseld. sven ayn

srete sosyal harcama dzey ve kamu bor yk neredeyse h demed.

te yandan, yne ablo 7de grld gb k ba mll gelr dzey 15.739

dolardan 39.539 dolara ykseld (OECD, 2008, 2012). Grld zere, bu k

lke rnende, kamu bor yk art le sosyal harcamalarn art arasnda

br lk bulunmaktadr.

Yunanstann yaad durumun br benzer daha az ddette de olsa spanya ve

Portekzde yaanmtr. talya se Yunanstana benzer br srec daha nceden

yaamaya balamtr.

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern 1980lerden tbaren sosyal har-

cama oranndak artn Espng-Andersenn snflandrmasnda yer alan Lberal,

Kurumsal/muhaazakr ve Sosyal Demokrat Reah Rejmne sahp lkelere gre

daha azla olduu grlmektedr. te yandan, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne


22/38


22

sahp lkelern 1980lerden tbaren artan bu sosyal harcamalar le yne ayn yl-

larda artan kamu bor ykler arasnda br lknn olduu tespt edlmtr. Do-

laysyla, Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern yaad bor krznnnedenlernden br de sosyal harcama oranlarndak art olarak grleblr.

Tablo 7.Selm lkelern K Ba Mll Gelr (Car Dolar Kuru)

Yunanstan talya spanya Portekz Fransa Almanya Norve sve

1960 612 804 396 360 1371 .. 1442 1964

1970 1651 2030 1178 893 2895 .. 3283 4361

1980 6509 8148 6022 3221 12827 11746 15593 15739

1990 10641 19983 13409 7540 21935 21584 27735 28295

2000 13139 19021 14434 11015 22437 23086 37489 27290

2005 25562 30177 25948 17592 35029 33719 65008 39539

(OECD, 2008)

Sonu

Gney Avrupa Reah Rejmne sahp lkelern yaamakta olduu krzn kk-

ler 2008 kresel ekonomk krznn epey ncesne uzanmaktadr. Sz konusu

lkeler gelr dzeyler le orantsz br eklde sosyal harcama gerekletrerekkamu bor yklernn artmasna zemn hazrlamtr.

Bu almada Gney Avrupa reah rejmne sahp olan lkelern ekonomk kr-

ze grmelernn ksmen bu lkelern sosyal harcama dzeylern olanaklarnn

hayl tesnde arttrmalarndan kaynakland gsterlmeye allmtr.

zellkle, Yunanstan ve talya hlhazrda kt durumda bulunmaktadr ve

gelecekte de durumlarnn yleecene ynelk kuvvetl br zlenm yoktur.

stelk ok cdd reormlarn gerekletrlmemes durumunda ekonomk du-

rumlar ok daha ktye gdeblecektr. spanya ve Portekz se hlhazrda bu

k lke kadar kt durumda bulunmasa da yne cdd reormlarn gereklet-

rlmemes durumunda daha ktye gdecektr.

Bu lkeler br bor krznde olduklarndan dolay sosyal harcama dzeylern

kademel br eklde azaltarak kamu bor sevyelern azaltmalar gerekmekte-

dr. Yne bu lkeler GSYH byme oranlarn da arttrarak kamu bor ykler-

n daha da azaltmaldr.


23/38


23

Sosyal harcama dzeyn azaltmak kolay br mesele deldr. Azaltmay yava

yava gerekletrmek gerekr. Zra sosyal harcamalardak keskn dler hem

devlet ok hzl kltr hem de devletn salad sosyal olanaklara bamlolan nsanlara ar br eklde zarar verr. Kamu kesmnn hzl br eklde k-

ltlmes GSYH byme oran zernde de olumsuz br etkye sahp olacan-

dan lkey daha da krzn ne sokar.

te yandan, bu lkeler daha rekabet hale gelerek GSYH byme oranlarn

arttrmaya almaldrlar. Daha rekabet hale gelmenn blndk yolu se para

brmne belrl br oranda devalasyon yapmaktr. Fakat bu lkeler ortak br

para brmne sahptr ve Avroya devalasyon yapmak kend tasarruflarndadeldr. Bu durum bu lkelern daha rekabet hale geleblmeler n gerye

tek br yol kaldn17gstermektedr: Bu lkeler reel cretler drmeye a-

lmaldrlar.

Den reel cretler blnen sebeplerden tr sthdam orann arttracaktr.

Bu durumun da GSYH byme oran ve verg gelrler zernde olumlu br

etks olacaktr. Bu durum ayrca bamllk orann azaltacak ve szlk maa

vb. harcamalar da bylece azalacaktr. Sonuta da sosyal harcamalar ve kamubtes zerndek bask da hafleyecektr.

17 Aslnda br yol daha bulunmaktadr. Avrupa Merkez Bankas (ECB) genlemec para poltkas uygulayp Almanya gb zen-

gn Kta Avrupas lkelernde lml enflasyon yaratablr. Bu durum Kta Avrupas lkelernn vermllk dzeyn drerek

dolayl yoldan Gney Avrupa lkelernn vermllk dzeyn arttracaktr. Fakat Almanya 1920l yllarn banda yaad

hperenflasyon yznden enflasyon krnden dern br eklde neret etmektedr. ECB yksek oranda Almanyann etksaltndadr. Bu adan bu yol teorde olsa da pratkte yoktur (Krugman, 2012b, s. 179).


24/38

* skender GM, Ph.D., is an assistant proessor o Labor Economics and Industrial Relations. His studies are on welare state,

welare o elderly people, income distribution and urbanization policy. Correspondence: Krklareli niversitesi, ktisadi ve dari

Bilimler Fakltesi, alma Ekonomisi ve Endstri likileri Blm, Kayal Yerlekesi, Koaz 39100 Krklareli, urkey. Email:

[email protected]; [email protected] Phone: +90 537 278 8730.

** Mevlt ALIYER is a research associate o Economic Teory. His studies are on new neo-classic synthesis, rational

expectations theory, employment, unemployment, income distribution and social policies. Contact: Krklareli

niversitesi, ktisadi ve dari Bilimler Fakltesi, ktisat Blm, Kayal Yerlekesi, Koaz 39100 Krklareli, urkey. Email:[email protected]; [email protected] Phone: +90 537 278 8730.

Abstract

The financial crisis, which emerged in the USA in 2008 and continued to spread all over the

world, was followed by the European debt crisis near the end of 2009. The factors leading

to the debt crisis can be divided into two main categories: Firstly, the countries fell into the

crises as a result of the gradually growing burden of debt (Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portu-

gal) was also the countries which have Southern European Welfare Regime. Public and

social expenditures in these countries are lower than those countries with a higher national

income per capita. However, these countries have considerably exceeded their potential ofpublic and social expenditure. On the other hand; these countries, with their lower levels of

productivity, have become even less efficient by the effect of Euro and, because they had easy

access to loan, were able to significantly increase their burden of debt. As a result, Spain

and Portugal faced a liquidity crisis, while Greece and Italy faced a default crisis. This study

handles the welfare regimes in these countries within the framework of the current debt

crises they experience, given that a profligate welfare regime has a direct or indirect role

in a crisis. For this purpose, the social expenditure increase in Southern European Welfare

Regime countries is analyzed and correlated with their current debt crisis.

Key Words

Debt Crisis, Economic Crises, Social Expenditure, Southern European Welfare Regime,Welfare Regimes.

skender GM*Krklareli University

Mevlt TATLIYER**Krklareli University

Debt Crisis in Southern European Welfare

Regime

Turkish Journal of Business Ethics May 2013 6(1) 24-37

TRKYE GAD www.isahlakidergisi.com DOI: 10.12711/tjbe.2013.6.1.0117


25/38

GM, TATLIYER/ Debt Crisis in Southern European Welfare Regime

25

Te most distinct common characteristic o the Southern European countries

affected by the 2008 economic crisis emerging in the USA was the act that

they all ell into the Southern European Welfare Regime paradigm. Toughthese countries rate o public and social expenditures to gross national product

(GDP) was not higher than those countries with higher per capita income,

these specific countries expenditures were above their potential thereby causing

serious deficits in their budgets.

Te basic causes o the debt crisis, which emerged in Europe and which mostly

affected the Southern European Welare Regime countries, included monetary

union problems, loose fiscal discipline, insufficient audits, economic actorsexcessive borrowing by taking too much risk, vulnerabilities in banking systems,

problems in the residential sector, inadequate economic growth, high figures

o unemployment, residual economic disequilibria, lack o compatibility, and

management problems in the Euro region (Kibritiolu, 2011; Nelson, Belkin,

Mix, & Weiss, 2012; Yang & Lei, 2012).

In addition to these basic causes, some authors also note that social welare

expenditures o Southern European Welare Regime countries were too highand that these countries acted fiscally irresponsible (Lemieux, 2013; anner,

2013; Yang & Lei, 2012). Krugman (2012a), however, argues that the debt crises

was caused neither by the level o social welare expenditures setting a premium

on individuals living in poverty nor by fiscal irresponsibility.

Tere are various surveys that attempt to explain the relation between Southern

European Welare Regime countries debt crisis and their social welare policies.

Te surveys conducted by Matsaganis about Greece (2011), Schwartz aboutSpain (2013), Cencig about Italy (2012), and Glatzer about Portugal (2012) all

show the relation between the debt crises aced by these countries and their

welare state practices and social expenditures.

On the other hand, public expenditures o Southern European Welare Regime

countries remain less than the public expenditures o Corporatist/conservative

and o Social Democrat Welare Regimecountries, but are higher than o Liberal

Welare Regime countries (OECD, 2009). In act, though high rates in public


26/38

T u r k is h J o u r n a l o f B u s i n e s s E t h i c s

26

expenditures o Southern European Welare Regime countries do not pose any

apparent problem, they do not appear to be economically reliable since public

revenues are low (OECD, 2013).

Te patrimonial perception o the state in Southern European Welare Regime

countries has caused the emergence o a clientalist1 welare state (Ferrera,

1996). Te existence o a clientalist welare state, exhausting public unding

sources and spreading the black economy (Gough, 2008, pp. 232-233), causes

great stress in social policy (Kesgin, 2013, p. 97) and acts to indirectly increase

levels o social expenditures.

In this study we begin with the general characteristics o the Southern

European Welare Regime, reviewing the transormation experienced by these

countries. We then handle the debt crisis suffered by these countries within

the ramework o the Southern European Welare Regime, analyzing their debt

crisis through the changes made in their social expenditures. Finally, we discuss

how these countries can get out o the debt crisis through fiscal responsibility

and amendments in the employment market.

Southern European Welfare Regime

Esping-Andersen, in the article entitled Te Tree Worlds of Welfare Capitalism,

classified the welare regimes into three: (1) Liberal, (2) Corporatist/

conservative, and (3) Social Democrat Welare Regimes (Esping-Andersen,

1990, p. 3). Tis particular article o Esping-Andersen received large attention

in the academic community and became the most discussed and cited article inthe field o welare stare (Leibried & Mau, 2008, p. xx). Afer Esping-Andersen,

welare regime modeling studies became common2(Abrahamson, 1999, p. 400;

Arts & Gelissen, 2002, pp. 151-153).

In this classification, Esping-Andersen included only Italy among the

Mediterranean countries, describing it as a Conservative Welare Regime

1 Clientalism means, in short, the relation between the dependent and its patron (client-patronage) and reers to acts o politicians

that provide privileged service to the supporting voters.2 Abrahamson (1999) calls the welare regime modeling trend as welare modeling business.


27/38


27

(Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 74). Although Esping-Andersens classification

was pioneering in this field, ollowing studies raised many critics claiming the

classification to be deficient and suggesting many different classifications (Arts& Gelissen, 2002; Bonoli, 1997; Korpi & Palme, 1998; Navarro & Shi, 2001).3

One o the first alternative classifications belongs to Stephan Leibried. According

to Leibried (1992) Southern European countries constitute a separate welare

state regime under the name o the Latin Rim including Spain, Portugal, Greece

and, to a certain extent, Italy, and France. Like Leibried, Ferrera (1996, p. 20)

argued that Southern European countries had a separate welare regime and

called it the Southern Model.

Tese countries labor markets are radically different rom the Continental Welare

Regime in that they have a strong agricultural tendency. Unlike the Scandinavian

countries, these countries do not have a tradition o ull employment (Kesgin,

2013, p. 97). While Southern European countries try to parallel their Northern

neighbors in welare state practices, unlike the Northern states, amily and church

continue to serve a great social aid unction in Southern European countries

(Pierson, 1998, p. 780). Tough the constitutions o these countries make strongemphases on a modern welare state, practices necessary to ulfill such a model

are not ofen implemented. Tis act has earned the Southern European welare

states the title o Regimes o Institutionalized Promises(Leibried, 1992).

Te income substitution system in these countries is seriously ragmented and

distorted, leading to a significant level o polarization. For instance, according to

Ferrera, although the social benefits these countries offer are generous (in other

words, somewhat profligate) to the basic sectors o the labor orce locatedin the institutional labor market, social benefits provided to those located in

the non-institutional labor market which constitutes a rather large part o the

occupational sector are airly timid. However, these countries deviate rom

the conservative tradition in healthcare services and have created a somewhat

universal healthcare insurance system (Ferrera, 1996, p. 19).

3 Te beginning o classification efforts or welare states can be dated back to Wilensky and Lebaux (1958). In their article, Wilensky

and Lebaux made a distinction in the concepts o welare, where they mentioned the concepts o the residual and corporatist

welare state. itmuss (1974), studying the same subject, classified welare states into three: Residual Welare Model, the IndustrialAchievement Model, and the Corporatist Redistributive Model.


28/38


28

Kautto (2002, p. 53) tries to classiy the welare states according to their

approach o service and transer.4Te third group in Kauttos classification is

the low approach. Both transer and service expenditures are low in Ireland,Greece, Portugal, and Spain, all o which constitute the countries in this group

(Kautto, 2002, p. 62). Kautto claims that both transer and service expenditures

are law in Southern European welare regimes, with the sole exception o Italy.

Social Expenditures in Southern European Welfare Regimes

Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal did not have, in general terms, a higherlevel o social expenditures beore 1980 than did other welare regime

countries. Furthermore, although the average level o expenditures by

Southern European Welare Regime countries is lower than the average o

Social Democrat and Conservative Welare Regime countries, it is higher

than the average expenditure level o Liberal Welare Regime countries

(OECD, 2012).

On the other hand, the welare regime in Southern European WelareRegime countries has experienced a signiicant transormation with

the advent o the1980s. Beginning with the 1980s, the ratio o social

expenditures to GDP boomed in these countries, making up most o the

gap regarding social expenditure levels between them and other welare

regimes. hough other welare regime countries have increased their

level o social expenditures during the same period, such increase was

ar more behind that o Southern European Welare Regime countries.

As such, Southern European countries, leaving Liberal Regime countries

behind during the 1980s, reached roughly the same level o social

expenditures as both Social Democrat and Conservative Welare Regime

countries (OECD, 2012).

4 Service approach countries are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, and, more recently, Germany and the United

Kingdom. ranser approach countries have a higher level o transer or a lower level o service expenditures. Tis group includesBelgium, Netherlands, Austria, and Italy.


29/38


29

Indebtedness in Southern European Welfare Regimes

In terms o indebtedness in Southern European Welare Regime

countries, Greece and Italy, on one side, and Spain and Portugal, on the

other, share apparent similarities. he levels o public indebtedness in

Spain and Portugal are very high when compared to those o Continental

countries. Portugals level o public indebtedness was approximately

60% beore the onset o the 2008 inancial crisis, increasing to 80% in

the wake o the crisis. Spains general level o indebtedness had been

in a better condition than that o Portugal; Spains public indebtedness

level was roughly 30% beore the crisis, increasing to 50% ater its onset(OECD, 2011). As seen, Spains and Portugals levels o indebtedness

are not too high; instead, these countries mainly suer rom a liquidity

crisis.

Greece and Italy, ace a completely different set o experiences. Tese two

countries indebtedness ratio had been quite high beore the onset o the crisis.

Italys level o indebtedness was roughly 90% in the 2000s, while Greeces level

o indebtedness was nearly 100%. Afer the crisis however, both countries levelo indebtedness grew even more, reaching around 100% in Italy and 140%

in Greece in 2010. As seen, these two Southern European Welare Regime

countries are acing a default crisis due to their high levels o indebtedness

(OECD, 2011).

Debt Crisis in Southern European Welfare Regime Countries

here is no doubt that the high levels o indebtedness and lenders signiicant

distortion in perceiving the risks o these countries ater the crisis are the

underlying actors o the deep crisis aced by Southern European Welare

Regime countries. Greece and Italy, especially, carry burdens o debt much

higher than the other European countries, and although the burden o debt

o Portugal and Spain are relatively reasonable, there are serious concerns

on their ability to be able to cover their debts since both countries labor


30/38


30

eiciency5 levels (World Economic Forum, 2012, p. 13) and GDP growth

rate are quite low6(World Bank, 2013).

As such, welare state practices must be addressed in order to understand the

background o the crisis. Within the ramework o the modern era7, welare

state practices lived their golden age with the help o the rise o the Keynesian

economics8 in the period between 1950s and 1970s in numerous developed

countries.

Te period between 1960 and 1975 Continental countries increased their

social expenditures to GDP ratio dramatically and their GDP growth rate also

doubled (George, 1996).9On the other hand, social expenditures to GDP ratio

o the Southern European countries increased timidly, although their welare

regime had been already weak. It had hardly reached 8.6% and 11.8% in Greece

and Spain, respectively. In Italy, the same rate was 13.1% in 1960, reaching 21%

by 1975 (George, 1996).

On the other hand, political experiences o Southern European countries during

the same period were also different than those o the Continental countries.

Lagging ar behind the Continental countries in terms o industrialization

and economic growth, these countries were also politically severed rom the

Continental countries afer World War II. Greece, Spain, and Portugal were ruled

by non-democratic governments until the 1970s (Bermeo, 1987; Danapoulos,

5 Spain ranks 36th and Portugal ranks 49th in the Global Competition Report o 2012-2013. According to the same report, Italy

ranks 42nd and Greece ranks 96th. Tese Southern European Welare Regime countries are considered weak in competition

because o their macro-economic disequilibrium, inadequacy in having fiscal access, solid labor markets, and deficiency o

renovative practices.

6 Portugal grew by -1.6% and -3.2% percent, while Spain grew by 0.4% and -1.6% percent in 2011 and 2012, respectively. As the

other representatives o Southern European Welare Regime, Greece grew by -7.1% and -6.4% percent, while Italy grew by 0.4%and -2.4% in the same period. aking the year 2012 as the basis, we see that growth in Mediterranean countries has been negative,

leading to an economical downsize. During the same periods however, the USA grew by 1.8% and 2.2% percent, the UK grew by

1.0% and 0.3% percent, Germany grew by 3.0% and 0.7% percent, and Austria grew by 2.7% and 0.8% percent in 2011 and 2012,

respectively.

7 Beore the modern age, there are lots o practices which can be thought as welare state practices. For instance, as early as the 7th

century, the address o the first Arabia caliph Ebu Bekir to Hire public sheds very interesting light with regard to welare state: Te

needy people who got old or ailing or disabled and have lost the ability to work will be put on a salary by reasury (Yenieri, 2009,

p. 49). Tese kinds o welare state practices carried on in the period o the other Arabia caliphs. For instance, Caliph mer put

poor, blind and leper people on a salary in the very same century.

8 Tese were years when the influence o the ideas Keynes advanced began to shape hearts and minds everywhere (ownsend,

2002, p. 3).

9 Te IMF, the World Bank and GA, as then newly ounded institutions, made undamental contributions to the newly arising

world economic order. However, there are also arguments that organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank have negatively

affected welare state practices. For example, zuca (2003) argues that income distribution is distorted in countries that applystability and structural compliance programs offered by international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank.


31/38


31

1983; Moreno, 1997). Italy, however, was ruled by a ascist regime headed by

Mussolini rom 1922 until 1946; afer which it switched to democracy (Rus, 2012).

Tere are important similarities between Spain and Portugal. Tese two countries

share a common historical tradition and strong Catholic sense whereas Greece

ollows an Orthodox Christian tradition. Tese three countries were ruled by a

monarchy and, as mentioned beore, lef ar behind by Continental countries in

terms o industrialization (Guillen, Alvarez, & De Silva, 2002, p. 2).

Having escaped dictatorship and switching to democracy about in the middle

o the 1970s, Greece, Spain, and Portugal entered the European Community in

the 1980s. During the process o admission to the European Community, these

countries tried to ollow the lead o the Continental European countries in

terms o welare state practices in an effort to strengthen their welare regimes,

which had been quite weak until then.10

Southern European countries, having had very weak welare regime in the

1970s, made significant progress in their social policies in the 1980s. By 1980,

social expenditures to GDP ratio was 13.42% on average in Southern European

Welare Regime countries., Tis average was much lower than the average rates

o Social Democrat (21.71%) and conservative welare (21.23%) regimes. By

2007 however, Southern European countries reached to the point o catching

up with the Social Democrat and Conservative Welare Regime countries and

lef behind Liberal welare regime countries in terms o the social expenditures

to GDP ratio. Te average social expenditure to GDP ratio reached 24.78% or

Social Democrat Welare Regime countries, 24.15% or conservative welare

regime countries, 17.39% or Liberal welare regime countries, and 22.57% orSouthern European Welare Regime countries (OECD, 2012).

By 1995, the expenditures to public expenditures ratio in Liberal, Social

Democrat, and Conservative Welare Regime countries were 42.45%,

48.45%, and 48.45%, respectively, while it was 40.90% on average in Southern

European Welare Regime countries. By 2007, the social expenditures to public

10 Tere are arguments (dependency theory) claiming that Western prosperity causes a kind o addiction. According to the

dependency theory, economic growth in industrialized countries is provided by the added value obtained rom underdevelopedcountries (Smith, 1979).


32/38


32

expenditures ratio in Liberal, Social Democrat, and Conservative Welare

Regime countries were 42.29%, 51.98%, and 53.75%, respectively, while it was

51.02% on average in Southern European Welare Regime countries. Tereore,in a 12 year period, the rate o social expenditures to public expenditures

increased in Liberal, Social Democrat, and Conservative Welare Regime

countries by 6%, 5%, and 8%, respectively, while it increased an average o 20%

in Southern European Welare Regime countries (OECD, 2012).

On the other hand, though Southern European countries welare regime caught up

with the other welare regimes in terms o social expenditures levels, their welare

regime has yet to be developed with regard to the quality o the social service theyprovide. Te act that these countries have a clientalist nature has a significant

impact on this reality. In addition, sparing an important portion o the social

expenditures or retirement benefits, as in Greece, renders the system irregular

which has negative impacts on welare regime (Mylonas & Maisonneuve, 1999).

At this point, the nature o the social expenditures must be addressed. As

known, money is a luxury good according to Milton Friedman who argues

that the amount o money kept by people increases more than the rise in theirwealth level.11In this context, we will consider the social benefits provided by

the state as a luxury good. Te essential basis or claiming social benefits are

luxury goods is the act that these benefits are directly dependent on a personal

level o wealth/income and are thereore part o tax revenues. Tis is because

social expenditures represent a transer rom holders o wealth/income to

people without wealth/income in general terms, especially when the actuarial

balance is omitted. Notably, the act that retirement benefits hold a significant

portion in social expenditures makes the situation more clear.

Since social benefits are considered to be a luxury good, it is harder or relatively

poor countries to collect more taxes rom their citizens in order to achieve a

higher level o social expenditure than or relatively rich countries. In that sense,

we suggest that the marginal sacrifice emanating rom extra collected taxes in the

same level rom people o relatively poor countries is higher than that o relatively

rich countries. So in relatively poor countries the ratio o social expenditure to11 Tereore, the income elasticity o money is greater than one. Similarly, according to Keynes, peoples level o savings increase as

their level o wealth increases.


33/38


33

GDP should be lower than that o relatively rich countries once balanced budget o

government is required.

In a period when globalization continues to rise at a considerable level, bringing

with it pressure on tax rates, it becomes even more difficult or Southern

European countries to develop their social states.12

Among the OECD countries, except the liberalwelare regime countries which

pursue neo-liberal policy, generally and roughly; the richer the country the

more tax burden (tax revenues to GDP ratio) the country has. Yet, except

Canada and Ireland, in the countries which have a GDP per capita below a

certain level (33.000 dollar), afer experiencing above 35% ratio o tax burden

in the 1990s, the tax burden to GDP ratio started to decline and leveled around

30% in the 2000s. On the other hand, GDP per capita in Greece and Portugal is

around 25.000 dollars and in Spain and Italy around 32.000 dollars as o 2011

(OECD, 2012).

Tese findings we have acquired support our suggestions that relatively poor

countries should ace more obstacles than relatively rich countries ace with

regard to collecting tax and that there is a natural pressure on tax burden afer

a certain ratio.

In this respect, the booming social expenditure to GDP ratios in Southern

European countries which almost leveled with that o the other welare regimes

countries rom 1980s through 2000s, should be provided by assuming more

debt, in light o that their inability to increase their tax revenues enough to

finance booming social expenditures.

Te data confirms this suggestion. Te public debt burden o Southern European

Welare Regime countries has increased significantly since the 1980s in parallel

with the boom in their social expenditure to GDP ratios.13In line with the act that

Italys level o social expenditures, whose social expenditure to GDP ratio was more

higher than other Southern European countries then, was higher than the other12 Countries, which became open to international competition as a result o the globalization, would compete in taxation by lowering

the tax rates until the deep, so efficiency and sustainability o social state in Southern European Welare Regime countries will be

damaged by such competition.

13 Tough those were the years, when financial and economic liberalization increased, such transormation had an indirect impacton the public finance.


34/38


34

Southern European Welare Regime countries in the 1970s, its public debt burden

started to rise in the 1970s, and continued to do so in the 1980s.

Comparing the per capita income levels to the social expenditure levels o

Greece and Sweden gives the ollowing outlook:

In 1980, the social expenditure level was 10.24%, while per capita income was

6,509 USD in Greece and public debt burden was 24.6%. In the same year in

Sweden, a mature welare regime country, however, the social expenditure level

was 27.16% and per capita income was 15,739 USD, its public debt burden was

39.3%. Since then, the social expenditure level o Greece has almost doubled,

reaching 20.96% and its per capita income has reached 25,562 USD. Similarly,

its public debt level has increased to 111%. During the same period however,

Swedens social expenditure level and public debt burden has experienced only

a very timid change whereas its per capita income has increased rom 15,739

to 39,539 USD (OECD, 2012; World Bank, 2008). As seen, there is a relation

between the change in public debt burden and the change in social expenditures

in these two countries.

Afer taking into consideration these two countries previous and current

situations, a correlation is seen in the increase o social expenditures and

public debt burdens o the Southern European Welare Regime countries

since the 1980s. Tis thereore indicates the possibility that increasing social

expenditure rates were among the causes leading to the debt crisis presently

aced by Southern European Welare Regime countries.

Conclusion

Te crisis currently aced by Southern European Welare Regime countries has

roots reaching ar beore the global economic crisis o 2008. By making social

expenditures disproportionate with their wealth levels, these countries paved

the way or huge increases in their public debt burdens.


35/38


35

In this study we tried to show that the crisis aced by Southern European Welare

Regime countries is somewhat underlined by the act that social expenditures

in these countries ar exceeded their capabilities.

Since these countries are in a debt crisis, they should reduce their debt levels

by decreasing social expenditures gradually. Yet they also should increase GDP

growth rates in order to contract their debt burdens urther.

Decreasing social expenditure level is not an easy task. It should be done

gradually since sharp reductions in social expenditure level both contracts the

state too ast and hurt excessively people relying on social services the state

provide. oo ast a contraction o the public sector drives the country into

region o even deeper crisis by making GDP growth rates even bleaker.

On the other hand, these countries should try to increase their GDP growth rates

by becoming more competent. Te usual way o becoming more competitive is

devaluing the currency by a certain rate. But these countries share a common

currency and devaluing Euro is not at their disposal. Tis situation leaves one

way14to these countries to make themselves more competitive: Tey should try

to decrease real wages.

Reducing real wages will also increase the employment rate or obvious reasons.

Tis will have positive effects on the GDP growth and tax revenues. Tis also

will decrease the dependency ratio and the expenditures o unemployment

benefits and the like. So the strain on social expenditure level and public finance

will ade out too.

14 Actually there is one more way. ECB can apply an expansionary monetary policy and create modest inflation like 4-5% in richer

Continental countries like Germany. Tis will make Continental countries less competitive which means making Southern

European countries more competitive indirectly. But Germany deeply hates the idea o inflation because o the bad memories o

the hyperinflation they experienced in 1920s. ECB is highly under the influence o Germany. So this way is practically non-existent(Krugman, 2012b, p. 179).


36/38


36

References/Kaynaka

Abrahamson, P. (1999). Te welare modelling

business. Social Policy & Administration, 33(4),394-415.

Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Tree worldso welare capitalism or more? A state o the artreport. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2),137-158.

Bermeo, N. (1987). Redemocratization andtransition elections: A comparison o Spain andPortugal. Comparative Politics, 19(2), 213-231.

Bonoli, G. (1997). Classiying welare states: Atwo-dimension approach.Journal of Social Policy,

26(3), 351-372.Cencig, E. (2012). Italys economy in the Euro zonecrisis and Montis reform agenda (Working PaperFG1, 2012/05). Berlin: SWP.

Danapoulos, C. P. (1983). Military proessionalismand regime legitimacy in Greece, 1967-1974.Political Science Quarterly,98(3), 485-506.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Te three worlds ofwelfare capitalism. UK: Polity Press.

Ferrera, M. (1996). Te southern model o

welare in social Europe. Journal of EuropeanSocial Policy, 6(1), 17-37.

George, V. (1996). Te uture o the welare state.In V. George & P. aylor-Gooby (Eds.), Europeanwelfare policy: Squaring the welfare circle (pp.1-30). New York: St. Martins Press.

Glatzer, M. (2012). Welfare state growth and thecurrent crisis in Portugal: Social spending and itschallenges. UC Berkeley: Other Recent Work,Institute o European Studies.

Gough, I. (2008). Gney Avrupada sosyal yardm.

A. Bura & . Keyder (Der.), Sosyal politika yazlariinde (s. 231-260). stanbul: letiim Yaynlar.

Guilln, A., & Alvarez, S., & De Silva, P. A. (2002).European Union membership and social policy: TeSpanish and Portuguese experiences. Retrievedrom http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/ESPAnet/papers/aguillen.pd.

Kautto, M. (2002). Investing in services in WestEuropean welare states.Journal of European SocialPolicy, 12(1), 53-65.

Kesgin, B. (2013). Kamu sosyal politikalarnda

sosyal yardm. stanbul: Alm Kitap.

Kibritiolu, A. (2011). Avronun geleceinin

ABnin gelecei zerindeki (olas) etkileri. Retrievedrom http://kibritcioglu.socionet.ru/files/IKV-Kibritcioglu-20110125.pd.

Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). Te paradox oredistribution and strategies o equality: Welarestate institutions, inequality and poverty in theWestern countries.American Sociological Review,63(5), 661-687.

Krugman, P. (2012a). What ails Europe? Retrievedrom http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/opinion/krugman-what-ails-europe.html?_r=0.

Krugman, P. (2012b). End this depression now!New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Leibried, S. (1992). owards a European welarestate? On integrating poverty regimes into theEuropean community. In Z. Ferge & J. E. Kolberg(Eds.), Social policy in a changing Europe (pp. 245-279). Frankurt/Main: Campus Verlag.

Leibried, S., & Mau, S. (2008). Introduction.In S. Leibried & S. Mau (Eds.), Welfare states:Construction, deconstruction, reconstruction (Vol.I, pp. xi-lxiv). London: Edward Elgar Publishing

Limited.Lemieux, P. (2013). American and Europeanwelare states: Similar causes, similar effects. TeCato Journal, 33(2), 227-232.

Matsaganis, M. (2011). Te welare state and thecrisis: Te case o Greece. Journal of EuropeanSocial Policy, 21(5), 501-512.

Moreno, L. (1997). Federalization andethnoterritorial concurrence in Spain. Publius,27(4), 65-84.

Mylonas, P., & De la Maisonneuve, C. (1999). Te

problems and prospects faced by pay-as-you-gopension systems: A case study of Greece (OECDEconomics Department Working Papers, No.215). Paris: OECD.

Navarro, V., & Shi, L. (2001). Te political contexto social inequalities and health. Social Science andMedicine,52, 481-491.

Nelson, R. M., Belkin, P., Mix, D. E., & Weiss, M.A. (2012). Te Eurozone crisis: Overview and issuesfor congress. Retrieved rom http://pc.state.gov/documents/organization/185915.pd.


37/38


37

Organisation or Economic Co-operation andDevelopment. (2009). National accounts ata glance 2009. Retrieved rom http://dx.do

Documents

Güney Avrupa Refah Rejiminin Borç Krizi