Supp

l. to

nr

52 -

12/

2012

Flexibility and the Future of Work in Europe

The 2nd Congress of the Solvay Schools and their Alumni - BruSSelS, 15 OCTOBer 2012

2 12/2012

congress

3 12/2012

The 2nd Congress of the Solvay Busi-ness Schools ULB and VUB and their Alumni was placed high on our

agenda. Its foundations were laid through the organization of our prior events and the 2010 Congress : “Crisis 2007–20XX - what have we learned?”. Those Congresses have been the show-cases of what we can organize as Brus-sels’ business, economics and manage-ment centre of education excellence. SolvaySchoolsAlumni, strong of its nearly 20.000 members, is proud to have taken these initiatives and wishes to thank all, Platinium-Gold and Special Sponsors, Alumni, guests and participants, for hav-ing supported it, financially and being present. On behalf of SolvaySchoolsAlumni, I also would like to express our heartfelt thanks to the leading international fig-ures - Mrs Sharan Burrow, Professor Chris-topher Pissarides, Commissioner Joaquin Almunia and Mr Sergio Marchionne - as well as to Professors André Sapir and Luc Hens who strongly contributed to the success of this Congress. Finally, it was also a real pleasure to have the students of the Schools’ Execu-tive Programs and Masters to attend the academic session for free.

●

The idea with those Congresses was also to pay tribute to Ernest Solvay who, besides being the Great Captain of Indus-try praised worldwide, founded five “Institutes” - of Physics, Chemistry, Physi-ology, Sociology and the Solvay Business School -. Shortly after having brought the Inter-national Solvay Institutes for Physics and Chemistry alive, he started to organize regular “Conseils” (we will use the word “Congress”) gathering experts in those fields amongst whom Nobel Prizes win-ners such as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Max Planck.

Now that Economic Sciences have their so-called Nobel Prize, we felt natural to organize a Congress too, under-lining the importance of our schools’ fields of research, action and excellence as well as their influence on society.

●

It is my duty to trans-parently disclose that the Congress generated a surplus which will be shared equally between the Schools and SolvaySchoolsAlumni. The schools part will be wired to the Endowment created two years ago and managed jointly by the Schools and their Alumni. Our association will consider its part as equity, the revenue of which being used in the future to cover its running costs or very special events. This year, the Congress also offered us the opportunity to organize both for the VUB and ULB bachelor students a special 6 hours course on the Congress’ sub-ject given by Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2010, Professor Pissarides. The students have been enthusiastic about this experience and SolvaySchoolsAlumni hopes the students, our future members as alumni, will remember and also be sup-portive to the schools on the long term.

●

The following pages will remind you of the presentations and views shared at this thought-provoking event, which brought together about 1.200 participants at the Square Meeting Centre in Brussels on 15 October 2012 and which was widely applauded in the media as a particularly outstanding meeting. Having put the standard at a very high level, we have committed ourselves to take up the challenge to respect it for the next Congress in 2014. See you all then! All our gratitude and heartfelt thanks again! Very friendly yours,

Gilles Samyn, SolvaySchoolsAlumni

Demonstrating excellence

congress

content

gilles samyn

Demonstrating excellence 3

christopher Pissarides

The charm of a flexible

economy 4

sharan Burrow

Flexibility?

What does it look like? 6

Joaquin Almunia

A huge political challenge 8

sergio Marchionne

A fundamental element

of life itself 10

Luc Hens

André sapir

A panorama of views

on labour markets 13

the congress in pictures 13

F.D. Roosevelt Ave 50(CP 145/01)1050 BrusselsT. +32 (0)2 650 35 51F. +32 (0)2 650 41 52info@solvayschoolsalumni.net

ICS/EditoMarie-Louise Sq 691000 BrusselsT. +32 (0)2 230 02 33F. +32 (0)2 230 06 68ics@edito.be

Chief EditorMarc Chamut

CoordinationFabienne BeckerFrans GoddenMichaël van Zeebroeck

DesigningKramik

Christine Eekhout Carole GérardPhotographyPierre WachholderAdvertisingAlain Mathieumedial@skynet.be

All rights reserved.

4 12/2012

Acontinuous process of struc-tural change is taking place in our economies. The most obvi-

ous one is linked to the movements of our three big sectors: decline of agri-culture and rise of industry, decline of industry and rise of services. But there are changes taking places all the time within that structure. A flexible econ-omy can adapt very quickly to this structural change and take advantage of new job opportunities by enabling employers to switch to sectors that are becoming more profitable. Now, how does a flexible economy do that? The high employment is achieved through the delivery of diverse types of

jobs -part time jobs, atypical employ-ment, different flexible work hours, that would employ more women- and also through more active ageing opportu-nities. A flexible economy would cre-ate jobs that are more appropriate for people approaching retirement age, so retirement can be delayed, which of course is absolutely necessary in Europe now due to the ageing of the population. The lower persistence of unemploy-ment is obtained by preparing the unemployed to take up new jobs they can seize quickly, avoiding long term unemployment through active meas-ures from the government towards unemployment, not necessarily re-training but just keeping the unem-ployed in touch with what’s going on in the labour force, through instruc-tions on how to fill in CVs, how to apply for jobs or make some temporary job replacements. For example, when a woman is on maternity leave and the company needs an employee, the government might subsidise an unem-ployed worker to take the job. That kind of program has been tried very success-fully in Scandinavian countries. And finally how does flexibility bring a quicker adaptation to the structural changes? It is so because employers are not restrained by red tape or by restric-tions on closing down jobs and open-ing new ones. Therefore there is a quick adaptation to these new conditions and new job opportunities are taken up quickly in new sectors.

A lot of discretion What we should be looking for in flexibility is to encourage the labour market to be sufficiently flexible in the type of jobs it creates, the speed by which the jobs can be closed down, the speed by which they can be opened up, how many regulations there are in output markets that might restrict producers in the most profitable use of their outputs, with opportunities from identifying new sectors and moving in.

That’s what we describe as the flexible economy. There isn’t a single index that I can put on the table to tell you this market is more flexible than another because that index is the best, but in a flexible economy employers would be given a lot of discretion in their decisions con-cerning job creation and job destruc-tion, they wouldn’t be held back by excessive regulations. You do need some regulations in all markets of course. In labour markets we have the ones recommended by the International Labour Office about working standards, and there isn’t any reason to go much beyond them. There shouldn’t be any red tape regulations for professions, there shouldn’t be closed professions and output markets should be open for new producers to enter. There should also be regulations against monopolies and such practices as price fixing that inhibit competition, and large natural monopolies such as utilities should be regulated on an on-going basis to serve the public interest.An economy that has those charac-teristics would create a lot of uncer-tainties in the minds of the workers about the stability of their jobs and about their incomes. The way to insure against those uncertainties is through a government agency with a well-designed social security system. In the first instance, this system should include income support, but it should also have an active labour mar-ket component that gives incentives to the worker to get back to work; if the worker needs any kind of re-training in that job it might be subsidised by the government, there should be lifelong learning opportunities, etc. At the same time, the govern-ment offers income support through the social security system but also facilitates the transition to a new job. And that’s the main form of income insurance that should be offered. There shouldn’t be additional insurance offered by the employer through restric-

The charm of a flexible economyWhat does a flexible economy deliver? Three things: in normal times there would be high employment; in recession there is less persistence of unemployment by preparing the unemployed to take up new job vacancies quickly; when the economy recovers employment picks up quickly and unemployment falls quickly again. That’s the future of a flexible economy again.

Christopher Pissarides. The high employment is achieved through the delivery of diverse types of jobs.

Let the

employers

run their

businesses

the way they

want and

the way they

find the most

efficient.

cHristoPHer PissArides

5 12/2012

tive legislation unless the employer and the worker come into private agreements for it. Restrictions imposed by legislation, such as strict employ-ment protection that make it very dif-ficult for the employer to close down jobs in the short term, does not enable the company to look for new opportu-nities, to adapt to new conditions and bring about productivity improve-ments.

A one way process

Industrialisation is still a one-way process, driven mainly by new tech-nology that saves labour and increases labour productivity, to the extent that we don’t need to employ the same number of workers to produce the out-put we need. This is the main process by which we are still losing industrial jobs. But we also lose some from low-wage competition from other countries. Where is industry going? Industrial output might be increasing still through productivity gains but I think employ-ment in industrial jobs in Europe will be declining. It’s declining very fast even in Germany which has the biggest indus-trial sector in Europe. The type of goods that will be produced and traded will be high-technology differentiated goods. For example, there will always be a market for German cars to be exported to France and for French cars to be exported to Germany or Italy. Because we have different tastes in Europe, we will always want to buy each other’s goods, which will never be identical across producers. But those activities will not be creating the large number of jobs that we need to employ new work-ers coming on to the labour force. Productivity growth will come from new technology and this will be driving incomes up. Productivity growth will also be coming from a better utilisation of labour in the service sectors. This is why digitalisation will be of key impor-tance in the future. We are still behind the United States for example in the way we are using the digital technol-ogy to improve the efficiency in the office.

the jobs of tomorrow

Let’s see in more detail the type of jobs of tomorrow. Offers of jobs in information and communication tech-nologies will increase. We need these to bring about the office evolution that will digitalise the office effectively. We are still well behind in the number of

jobs we are creating in those sectors. The big names in the new digital technology such as Apple, Google, Yahoo, are all American. There are no European companies yet that compete at that level but we should get there with a well-structured labour market emphasizing this type of training. Environmental concerns are increas-ing and green jobs will multiply. What do we mean by a green job? It’s any job that helps move away from car-bon-generated energy to new types of energy. For example, the construction industry will need a lot of people work-ing in green jobs to know how to build a house taking advantage of more solar energy instead of using oil or coal for heating. Those types of concerns would create jobs but again not a very large number, partly because green jobs will replace the pre-existing “dirty” jobs. Instead of having someone who is an expert in heating generated by coal, you are going to have someone who is an expert in heating generated by the sun, and so the number of workers needed will not be very different. Meanwhile ICT is always by necessity a small sec-tor when compared with the whole economy. It’s important because it thrives in activity but not in num-bers. The European Commission says the population is ageing and health demands increase, partly because of increasing standards and partly because of increasing numbers of older people. In health we are going to need both highly trained people and also less well-trained people who work as carers. With respect to industrial R&D, the dominant sector is pharmaceuticals. But we are losing the initiative in that sector as well, as big companies are moving out of Europe. That’s again why we need to have flexibility and policy incentives to maintain if not increase the levels of R&D in that industry. In terms of numbers, where do we expect to find most new jobs? I believe it will be mainly in high quality services that serve the individual. We’ll find them in care of all kinds. Take childcare for example. If we have good and inex-pensive or state-funded childcare, that would encourage women to go into the labour force, increasing the num-ber of employed people substantially. Whether such jobs are created or not depends on how the market for less skilled people is regulated, in particu-lar whether it is sufficiently flexible to attract people who can create the jobs

in that area. If not childcare might be done at home by the family. The spread of education is attract-ing increasing numbers of teachers and school workers and creating many new jobs. Compared with the United States retail trade in Europe is well behind in the number of jobs it has. Shopping is not as good an experience as it can be, there is a lot of time wasting and a lot of self-help. Hotels, restaurants, cater-ings have the potential of increasing jobs at least compared with the United States. Also transportation, cars, car maintenance, durable goods and so on, will offer opportunities.

Better incentives

This is where I see the future of Europe in terms of providing the jobs that we need to satisfy the Europe 2020 objectives: ensuring that there is a 70-75% rate of employment in all countries and increasing especially the employment of older people, women and the young. Jobs in these sec-tors, such as caring and retailing, are women-friendly jobs. Women are bet-ter in providing health care or in school teaching than men are. Therefore, if we see growth in these sectors we will also see an increase in female employment. But to create those jobs you do need to provide better employer incentives, through a more flexible labour market. Let the employers run their businesses the way they want and the way they find the most efficient, and let the government take care of the subsidisa-tion of the training of the labour force to be able to take those jobs and the job security through a good system of insurance for low incomes. Minimum wages can be good for employment because they encour-age the participation of younger peo-ple. But it is important to choose the right level. The objective should be to choose a level that is up to the produc-tivity of the least productive jobs that we want to see in the market, but not higher, because a minimum wage that exceeds productivity will lead to the loss of employment. It is not possible to say more about the level that will be best at this stage; that level might be different in different economies and for different groups of the population and it can be arrived at through experi-mentation and empirical work that investigates the impact of the mini-mum wage at different levels. ■

cHristoPHer PissArides

Christopher Pissarides is Professor of Economics & Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE). In 2010 he won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.

6 12/2012

Flexibility? What does it look like?With the exception of very few nations, the state of the world for working people and their families is anything but optimistic. The world’s governments still lack the political will to act. After five years of financial crisis, speculative capital is still putting the real economy at risk.

In a global context, unemployment is now more than 200 million. That’s the highest on record since the great

depression. With 45 million young peo-ple entering the labour market every year for the next decade, in economies that simply cannot offer them secure employment, our children and grand-children are being marginalised. Apart from a sheer injustice, this is a social and an economic time-bomb. Ine-quality is growing within and between countries and environmental destruc-tion is displacing families and commu-nities from their lands and productive livelihoods. Climate change threatens the survival of the planet itself. The world’s governments still lack the political will to act. After five years of financial crisis, speculative capital is still putting the real economy at risk and workers are now the victims of a coor-dinated attack on job security, wages, pensions and fundamental rights, the bases of a social Europe that we have all engaged in. Despite the failure of the current dominant economic policies, multilat-eral institutions, including the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF, and the Troika in Greece are pursuing ruth-less conditionality that not only targets the incomes, the rights and the secu-rity of working people, but is shrinking the European economy and tipping an increasing number of countries into recession. We see profits put before decent work, the increase of precarious work a reduction in social protection and tax evasion. Urgent measures are necessary. More of the same policy and ideology is not only not going to work, it’s unac-ceptable to the people and has no eco-nomic nor social base for our communi-ties in the 21st century. In 2010 when global growth was 5,1%, even then people only talked about the

great shoots of recovery. When in 2012 global growth is 3,1 %, for 2013 3,3 is projected, with Europe pointed at 0,4 in 2012 and around 0 in 2013, this is not going to accommodate people and there is no confidence for security in terms of sustainable business. Those who profited from the specu-lative environment prior to the cri-sis proudly defended this capitalist model with everything they have. They defended the jungle of the financial markets. Five years later we don’t have any financial regulation of note. Now they are going to war on workers - on their rights, on their job security, on their workplace safety, their wages and pensions. Anyone who has sat with workers all around the world, in countries where people are losing their jobs, or are forced to into the informal economy can see the desperation. And when you look at the desperation, you know a few things. One, it did not have to happen. There are other ways. Two, it simply is not acceptable that people should face such traumas through misguided policies. And three, when you hear people say they are giving up on the hope of hav-ing children, because they cannot afford to bring them into the world, you realise we are in a serious trouble as a commu-nity across the globe. The negative impact of austerity poli-cies with no jobs or growth plan is so dramatic that in fact it is pushing coun-tries into recession. This was always going to be the case. You show me a successful restructuring that has not involved a mixture of fiscal consolida-tion with a plan of job growth and social protection.

An answer to the crisis

I hear people say that flexibility is an answer to the employment crisis. When

you say flexibility, what does it look like? What does it mean? If it means you want to hire and fire people, you’re going to fire the father or the mother, hire the son or the daughter on lower wages, and impoverish their families. What’s the sense in that either socially or indeed economically when it’s just going to lower the demand in the econ-omy? We also hear the story about com-petitiveness. Do we really want in a developed world, in social Europe, a move to the bottom on wages, which is competitiveness, or do we actually want a rise on productivity? You can choose either pathway. That’s what we’re still prepared to bargain for. Tensions are rising and threaten social cohesion, people are losing trust in democracy. The Ituc Global Poll 2012 demonstrates the fear and insecurity of people in 13 countries and a result-ing lack of confidence in governments. Wealthy countries like Belgium and Germany show high levels of pessimism. So it’s not the developing world, it’s not the emerging economies, it’s the estab-lished economies in our backyard. Some 71% of the public believe there is a lack of legal protection to secure jobs, 79% say they cannot save a euro or a dollar. Just 11% people say their income increased in real terms. So how can you rebuild a consumption slump in those conditions? But the most choking figure is that 13% only of the people think that as voters they have any influ-ence on economic decisions of demo-cratically elected governments. People want an alternate approach. The majority of the public has a differ-ent view than their governments. Only 10% of them say austerity first. Most people say jobs first and fiscal consoli-dation leveraged off jobs and growth, or both at the same time. In addition to secure jobs and incomes,

The

democratic

contract is

actually

broken. And

we’re only

going to

fix it with

genuine plans

that will

generate

hope and

optimism of a

secure future.

sHArAn Burrow

7 12/2012

sHArAn Burrow

working people and their families want healthcare (46%), education (94%), decent retirement incomes (91%), access to childcare (90%), unemploy-ment benefits (81%). Again, it’s the very security of the lifestyles that we all look for in our communities. We want oppor-tunities for ourselves and our children. And there are options, we have other choices. We know that investment in infrastructure drives the biggest multi-plier effect. We saw that when govern-ments coordinated strategies, when money that didn’t go to the banks actually went into the infrastructure that neither society neither business prompted up and delivered more jobs.

the green economy

It’s imperative if we want to have a planet to pass on to our children and grand children that we insure the transi-tion to the green economy. In just the 12 countries we studied, if we invest in it 2% of the GDP each year for 5 years,

we can actually deliver 48 million new jobs. Imagine what we could do in 50 or 100 countries. I don’t agree with the fact that we are in post-industrial Europe. It’s simply impossible when you think that by 2050 we have to deliver 50% more food, 45% more energy and 30% more water. What’s Europe’s contribution to that? It’s jobs, jobs across the sectors, jobs in agriculture, in manufacturing, in energy, in transport, in construction, in water. These are jobs here, real jobs, some of them traditional. So, we can make a dif-ference if the plan to invest in jobs is there. Then there is the care economy. If you look at the demand for 12 million more teachers, for childcare workers, for health care workers, if you look at the services based on demographics, whether young or aged, you can see plenty of jobs, good jobs. And they are the bases of our community. So let’s not walk away from govern-ments and government’s responsibility.

Let’s not keep transferring it to the mar-riage of the bond sector and the ratings agencies or the banking sector, let’s put it into real jobs. We have had something like 3 trillions dollars delivered to the banks in terms of both direct transfers and guarantees, often with little condi-tionality and little return on investment. It’s time we get a little more serious about the investment in jobs that our money should be delivering. And I‘m just saying this is all about public money. We have 25 trillion dollars of workers’ capi-tal pension funds invested in the global economy. We want to say: less specula-tive activity and more patient capital. We’re driving a demand to the pension funds to increase their investment in the green economy and to disclose their assets base so we can actually have a look at those who own the capital and see where the money is going. We don’t want the double-digit speculative environment where you’re up one year and negative the next one. It’s simply not a good way to manage money or an economy, or sustainable business.

Jobs with rights

The democratic contract is broken. And we’re only going to fix it with plans that will generate hope and optimism of a secure future.

It’s time for a new social and economic pact. Unions will continue to bargain for jobs and growth, jobs with rights. We will fight for the strength of social Europe, the same policies of genuine social dialogue. Elsewhere in the world, we’ll fight for social protection, for the policies that transform informal economies. And of course we’ll fight for the security for working people, whether they work in one job or in a team. We need to build the optimism that guarantees that our children and grand children have a view that they will have a secure future with secure incomes in a much greener economy. ■

Sharan Burrow is General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, the world’s peak union body that represents 175 million workers in 153 countries and territories and has 308 national affiliates.

Sharan Burrow. I don’t agree with the fact that we are in post-industrial Europe.

8 12/2012

A huge political challenge

U nemployment figures in the European Union paint a rather grim picture. More than 25 mil-

lion people are unemployed through-out the EU, including 18 million in the 17 countries of the euro area. For the young, the situation is dismal: 5.5 mil-lion young Europeans are unemployed, while youth unemployment rates have risen above 50% in Greece and Spain. During the last year, these figures have been swollen by 2 million more unemployed people. At the moment, there are just as many jobs in the EU as 3 years ago and the same number of jobs in the euro area as 6 years ago. This, to say the least, is a very difficult situation. There are tens of millions of citizens asking for a job that they cannot find in the market. This creates social and human tensions and strong political difficulties for all of us.

A resounding success

Until the third quarter of 2008, that is to say, before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Europe’s employment perfor-mance was very good. In May 2008 the Commission published a report analys-ing the first 10 years of the Economic and Monetary Union. We expressed satisfaction that, for its first decade, the euro was a resounding success, and in that period the euro area had created more jobs than the U.S. We were good performers in terms of employment levels, particularly in the periphery of the euro area. At that time, the economies that were recording the highest job growth rates were Ireland and Spain. Behind such good employ-ment performances lay indeed strong growth rates. Such growth was mainly fuelled by an unprecedented credit impulse. In parallel, external savings flooded those peripheral countries to finance very high investment levels, outpacing domestic savings. Consequently, invest-ment came with indebtedness. The problem was that part of such leverage was used to finance either consumption or housing, while it added no muscle to the productive capacity of the countries concerned.

Access to cheap credit At that time, when we were discuss-ing employment and the future of work, flexibility was not the number one issue. Rather than labour market conditions, access to cheap credit in a strong cur-rency such as the euro, thanks to the existence of the Economic and Mon-etary Union, was much more relevant in explaining developments. Easy financing of excessive invest-ment as compared to savings was linked to the development of a real estate bubble. Many activities favoured by the existence of this bubble implied a low productivity growth pattern with low-skilled new jobs. Now the question is: was this a failure of the Economic and Monetary Union or a failure of labour market conditions? It is still worth asking this question now, as we need to design and implement the right strategy to tackle the employ-ment problems created by the crisis, which also affect our confidence in the future. So the crisis uncovered the weak-nesses of the situation we were living in before the crisis. In particular, it uncov-ered the weaknesses of countries in the periphery of the euro area, which were the best performers in terms of job crea-tion at the time.

the reversal

The situation is now the opposite. Unemployment figures have increased everywhere in Europe during those four crisis years, but much more quickly so in the periphery of the euro area. Bubbles do not create high-skilled jobs. When the bubble burst, jobs were lost at a fast pace in economies that were based on easy credit conditions. The jobs most affected by the crisis were low-skilled jobs in low productivity ser-vices. Part of the very brutal adjustment in the labour market in Spain, for exam-ple, had to do with the very high rate of temporary work – which represented one third of the total of jobs. Employ-ment losses were heavily concentrated in construction and some manufactur-ing services and impacted low-skilled workers in low productivity sectors. It

proved very difficult to recycle them through the traditional active labour market policies. These policies cannot transform a low-skilled construction worker into an IT engineer in the high value-added services that we need. This raises an important question: what comes first? Is it the bad quality of the labour market legislation and insti-tutions, the legislation making it easy for employers to hire people with fixed-term contracts without an adequate active labour policy, the bad functioning of employment services, or the perverse incentives coming from the employ-ment benefit system coupled with the lack of an adequate training system? Or was this segmented and inefficient labour market created by a growth model fuelled by a financial bubble that developed because of institutional and macro-economic conditions? This is a very important question to be answered if we want to tackle the real challenge we are facing in the peripheral econo-mies in Europe. In core European countries, the economy has withstood the crisis bet-ter. Export-oriented sectors with strong competitiveness were able to regain market shares in 2009 following the first big shock of this crisis. A better trained and highly productive labour force, more flexible labour markets and good active labour market policies have already con-tributed to the structural adjustment. If we look at the unemployment figures in the core countries of the euro area, we can observe that they are clearly lower than in the second or third quar-ter of 2008, before the failure of Lehman Brothers.

structural reforms

Labour market legislation matters, institutions matter, flexibility is impor-tant. However, there is more to address. We need also to think about the mac-roeconomic environment where these structural policies or instruments come into play. We need to tackle labour market challenges and issues regarding the future of work both with macro-economic and institutional or structural decisions concerning the labour market. How can we achieve this? We have

The crisis

uncovered

the

weaknesses

of the

periphery

of the

euro area

that was

before it

the most

important

performer in

terms of job

creation.

JoAquin ALMuniA

Combining flexibility within the companies with the adequate level of security for the workers has to be a coherent part of a bigger package: we need to restructure the economy.

9 12/2012

JoAquin ALMuniA

done and we are still doing a lot of work for the repair and restructuring of the financial system in Europe. This is a very important aspect. We also have an updated strategy for structural reform, innovation, investment in net-works, the digital agenda – in sum, all the policies that are needed to advance towards a new economic model for the future. These are the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. In this context we also aim to make progress towards the good functioning of our labour market, in order to achieve what is called flex-security. Indeed, labour market reform is key. We need to combine flexibility within companies with the adequate level of security for workers.

A bigger package

Nevertheless, the lesson from the experience we have had in the last 5 years, this needs to be part of a bigger package: we need to restructure the economy. We need to retrain the EU labour force. We need to move towards high value added services, more research and development, for example in the pharmaceutical or medical sectors, more innovation and better functioning ser-vices. This requires a comprehensive eco-nomic strategy, not merely a strategy to reform the labour market.

Can these conditions be met at the national level, given that we live in an economic and monetary union, a sin-gle market, and given that we live in an economic area, Europe, competing against all the other big players in the world economy, not only the US or other industrialized economies but also emerging countries? Can we carry out these huge efforts to change our growth patterns and rein-force the governance mechanisms of our fiscal and other macroeconomic policies, without a much higher level of EU inte-gration, of integration of the Economic and monetary union? My answer of course is no. In this regard, we need an ambitious roadmap to complete the Economical and Mon-etary Union not only with a stronger fis-cal and macroeconomic governance, but also with a more ambitious fiscal union, a banking union, an economic union, and ultimately a more politically integrated union. I cannot believe, having analysed what has happened in the last five years in our economies, in our labour markets, that we can get out of this terrible situa-tion of 25 million unemployed people in Europe without the further integration that will allow us to transform the way our economies can grow and employ the labour force which is right now unem-ployed or underemployed.

Human beings

There is another condition. We are talking about people, about human beings, about citizens who have their aspirations, their feelings, their citizen-ship rights. For these strategies to suc-ceed, if we want to increase flexibility -and we need to increase it-, we must provide real security to our working peo-ple. We need to increase the likelihood that they will find a new job, given the time lag for these structural reforms to change our growth potential and trans-form the way our economies create jobs so that they create high value added jobs. This is why growth measures are essential. We need to bring growth back. Without growth, structural reforms are not effective enough. Without growth expectations in our economies, we will not deliver in the time that is available from the political and social point of view, the results we are aiming for -and we are convinced that these benefits will arrive thanks to structural reforms, more flexibility, a better functioning of our products, services and labour markets. We therefore need confidence and trust.

several answers

There are several answers, not just one. I am convinced that growth will come back to Europe. I am convinced that Europe can stay competitive vis-à-vis the rest of the world and that it can be achieved with better work prospects for our citizens. The future of work in Europe is not in low wages, low productivity and poor quality work. On the contrary, it lies in high wages, high productivity, high qual-ity jobs. All our efforts need to converge for this. We need to put on the table the adequate strategies and policies, and I am convinced we are capable of doing so. My only worry is that in Europe, the difficulty to deliver in all these fields is not linked to our knowledge, our human resources or our capacity to design those policies and strategies. But will our democracies allow us -as politicians- to implement all these strategies in due time? Will we be able to maintain the confidence, the trust that is needed in a democracy for the voters to continue to support the adequate measures, the sensible policies and strategies? I remain optimistic that we will cope with this political challenge. ■

Joaquín Almunia is Vice-President of the European Commission and European Commissioner for Competition (2010-2014).

Joaquin Almunia. Bubbles don’t create highly skilled jobs.

10 12/2012

A fundamental element of life itselfWith his experience managing Fiat-Chrysler -which operates in 190 countries, employs nearly 200,000 people worldwide and deals with numerous different cultures and systems on a daily basis-, Sergio Marchionne offers a somewhat global perspective on flexibility and the future of work.

What is the significance of the word “flexibility”? Look it up in any dictionary and you will

find the description of a fundamen-tal element of life itself: the ability to adapt to changes in our environment and circumstances. An attribute that is vital to our survival and to being able to even contemplate the possibility of a future. Without it, we as a race would have reached extinction long ago. Paradoxically, however, when it comes to the labour market here in Europe, flexibility seems to be regarded as a political and ideological taboo. Attempts to introduce flexibility often spark major social conflict, because it is perceived as a threat to workers. It is considered synonymous with the tem-porary and precarious, with granting companies the freedom to dismiss. However, a successful enterprise needs its people and it needs them to feel they are a part of the future. Many have believed that rigid labour laws are the best or only way to guarantee jobs and wages. In reality, rigid laws that deny compa-nies the ability to take full advantage of favourable economic conditions or to effectively manage the ups and downs in the market can suffocate growth. That, in turn, can lead to businesses being forced to move elsewhere or even

close their doors and, consequently, it actually represents a direct threat to jobs and wages. One of the biggest challenges we face in Europe is changing the percep-tion of what flexibility really means. My observation is that in the U.S., flexibility is seen by workers as an opportunity to gain experience and develop skills -with the same company or another one. It is synonymous with having greater freedom to choose one’s own future, unrestricted by narrow def-initions of what one can or can’t do. By contrast, in many European coun-tries, workers view flexibility as a threat to their job rather than an opportunity for growth. That perception is a threat to our economic vitality. The culture needs to change to a point where people discard the mindset of inertia and resistance -and the very real danger it represents- and embrace the challenge of flexibility and change -and the opportunities that can bring.

A distinction to make

When talking about flexibility, we should make a distinction between fac-tors that are external and those that are internal to an organization. The first, “external” flexibility, essen-tially relates to the ease or difficulty

employers face in entering into or withdrawing from an employment rela-tionship. Obviously, this is an area over which governments have the greatest influence. Some progress has been made in Europe in recent years, particularly in terms of hiring, with the introduction of new contractual mechanisms. Unfor-tunately, however, a comparative analy-sis shows that overall Europe is still far behind other markets. The World Economic Forum’s most recent Global Competitiveness Report shows that -with some rare exceptions such as Switzerland, the UK and Den-mark- labor markets in European coun-tries are not particularly efficient. Out of the 144 countries included in the report, Belgium ranks 50th, Germany 53rd, and France 66th. And Italy is in a very disconcerting 127th place.

A more active role

The form of flexibility which is inter-nal to an organisation relates to work-ing conditions -primarily hours, type of work and pay. Here enterprises have a more active role and, consequently, a greater degree of responsibility. A company needs to be able to adapt rapidly to changes in the market, real-locating resources and optimizing the

ideoLogicAL confLicts

In the area of “hiring and firing prac-tices”, a component of labour market efficiency, three European countries are near the very bottom of the rank-ings. Belgium is positioned 132nd, Italy 136th and France 141st.Not surprisingly, trade unions in all three of those countries have tradi-tionally been very politically oriented and industrial relations tend to be dominated by ideological conflicts rather than constructive resolution of concrete issues. A recent example of this was the introduction of labour reforms in Italy: in particular, amendments to what

is called Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute which were intended to bring Italian labor regulations into line with other European nations. Before the amendment was introduced, Article 18 required that companies rehire workers in cases of unlawful dismissal. Within the European Union, only Aus-tria and Portugal have similar provi-sions. Everywhere else in Europe, the legal remedy is limited to financial settlement only or, at the very least, employers have the choice between rehiring and settlement. The problem in Italy was not so much Article 18 itself, but the ideological baggage surrounding it. There were months of heated public debate with ideological entrenchment on all sides.

Some went so far as to argue that the reform would leave workers vulner-able to indiscriminate dismissals or even large-scale layoffs.Although the amendment was finally passed, the kind of stonewalling that took place, resorting to old prejudices, vetoes and brute force to resist much needed reforms, only risks paralyzing a country. Remaining entrenched in outdated concepts that have no relevance to today will almost inevitably lead to the opposite of what everyone wants.For our sacrifices to count, for the buds of a new economic vitality to actually blossom, we also need to bring an end to the outdated protec-tions that represent a drag on busi-

ness and our economy and, in the end, won’t actually protect anyone from the inevitability of change. One of the major factors -if not the major factor- compromising the com-petitiveness of European industry and deterring foreign investment is the inefficiency of the labour market. If we don’t find a solution, hopes for an economic recovery robust enough to create new jobs will be in vain. Adequate flexibility of the labour mar-ket is an absolute prerequisite to our companies becoming more competi-tive and our workers, particularly the younger generation, having a more secure future.

One of the

biggest

challenges

we face in

Europe is

changing the

perception

of what

flexibility

really means.

sergio MArcHionne

11 12/2012

utilization of manufacturing capacity to fully leverage opportunities in the mar-ket, as well as effectively responding to adverse trading conditions. A positive example of this type of flexibility comes from CNH right here in Belgium. The combine business is highly seasonal with demand concen-trated in the first half of the year as our customers prepare for the harvest sea-son. At the Zedelgem plant, we have in the past applied a very successful model where employees at the plant worked 48 hours a week during the first six months of the year and 32 hours a week for the remainder. At the same time, they had the guarantee of a stable income with their monthly pay remain-ing unchanged throughout the year.This was a real win-win situation, because it is compatible both with the needs of employees and the demands of the market. While responsibility for ensuring adequate internal flexibility rests with the company itself, to be fully effective and compatible with workers’ needs, the external conditions also have to be right. Companies and workers in Europe still need a greater level of support in terms of transportation, public services and schools. And that takes us back to the core issue. The primary ingredient necessary for us to progress -a widespread culture based on flexibility- is still lacking.

numerous mechanisms

I am frequently asked to make com-parisons between Europe and the U.S. in areas such as business climate, ability to react to crisis, industrial relations and even flexibility in the labour market. Many economists believe that -in order to improve productivity, efficiency and profitability- Europe needs to con-verge towards an American-style model. I don’t believe that such a convergence is possible -or even desirable- in the medium term. The European market is conditioned by two significant factors: a strong sense of social responsibility and a rela-tively recent tradition of open markets. Anyone doing business in Europe has to understand and work within this social and political context. I always personally have believed that if a society is to be sustainable, then

it has a vested interest in supporting those affected by changes in the mar-ket. There are and always will be factors outside of our individual control and responsibility that can cause adversity and suffering. Society as a whole has a responsibility to support those individu-als to get back into the workforce and remain active contributors to society. There are numerous mechanisms available to us that are perfectly com-patible with a free market economy. As recent events have proven, the tradi-tional Welfare State no longer works. It didn’t protect us from the crisis or equip us to deal with global change. Paradoxically, a system established to protect jobs and help the weak has brought us to the point where creat-ing jobs is the most difficult thing to achieve. If Europe is to distinguish itself in dealing efficiently and fairly with the unfortunate but inevitable social impacts that free markets can cause, we need to employ modern, more effective tools.

the right equilibrium

The challenge for Europe is to find the right equilibrium between labour mar-ket flexibility and security for workers. Those two concepts are not incompat-ible. Quite the contrary! Achieving that equilibrium is, in fact, what will guaran-tee us true long-term security. It was in the mid-1990s that the term “flexicurity” first appeared. Professor Ton Wilthagen, chair in institutional and legal aspects of the labour market at Tilburg University, defines flexicurity as:

“the concept [that] pertains to a shift from ‘security within a job’ towards ‘security of a job’, a shift that in its turn is strongly related to changes in the economy and households and to the emergence of a corresponding flexible system of social security. The principal innovation is that social protection systems should be designed to provide active risk protection for individuals rather than attempting to address problems after they have occurred. There is another important aspect to the flexicurity model, and once again I’ll borrow the words of Ton Wilthagen who says that: “… the concept of flexicurity also refers to a basic feature of nego-tiating and policy-making processes in which the social partners, at several levels, and the government are involved. That is: the pursuit of so-called ‘win-win’ outcomes.” We have to create the material con-ditions and confidence that will enable a flexible system to work, starting with a new approach to negotiation where responsibility for achieving the stated goals is shared. Nobody can achieve this alone. This is a challenge that requires the active participation of everyone: government, business, unions and individuals.

Hand in hand

The future of the European labour market and the overall competitiveness of our systems go hand in hand. When we find ourselves in the midst of a widespread crisis -like the current one- where jobs just aren’t available,

Sergio Marchionneis Chairman and CEO of Chrysler Group and CEO of Fiat SpA.

Remaining

entrenched

in outdated

concepts

that have

no relevance

to today

will almost

inevitably

lead to the

opposite

of what

everyone

wants.

sergio MArcHionne

Sergio Marchionne. With the vision of a better future comes the responsibility for constructing it.

12 12/2012

the real benefits that flow from fac-tors such as worker employability and adaptability, constructive social dia-logue and job transition mechanisms are severely compromised. Actions and policies are needed at both the EU and national level to ena-ble existing companies to become more competitive, attract foreign businesses and capital, and preserve and create jobs. A rather alarming survey was pub-lished in Italy’s leading financial news-paper two months ago, which should serve as a wakeup call. If we look at the average annual change in productivity in Europe between 2001 and 2010, Bel-gium and Italy are at the bottom of the list. Increasing our competitiveness and productivity is a priority now more than ever before. If we are unable to keep up with the rest of the world, there will be serious social implications and our youth, in particular, will pay the price. We need to move decisively to unleash our growth potential, create opportunities for businesses to develop and maximize employment. Although there has been a steady decline in jobs in the industrial sector, we can’t just give up now and accept “de-industrialization”. Even in the face of the current adversity, we have an obligation to defend and nurture our industrial capability. Manufacturing is still one of the most important con-tributors to GDP and employment for any advanced economy and, therefore, to the well-being of society as a whole. An economy that loses its manu-facturing base will inevitably suffer a structural reduction in competitive-

ness. We saw this happen in Britain in the 1980s when a conscious choice was made to shift from a manufactur-ing to a service-based economy. Along with the decline in the industrial base, the equilibrium of the entire economic system was undermined. An economy that forsakes manufacturing to focus on financial and other services depletes itself. It loses workers, its skill base is eroded, and it sacrifices its economic stability. All precious resources that -once they have disappeared- are very difficult to rebuild.

An enormous opportunity

We are at a historic crossroads. The choices we make now will have major consequences for the future. We can embrace a culture where competition and equality, economic growth and individual welfare can co-exist and flourish, or we can choose to leave things as they are, secure in our illusion that sooner or later they will resolve themselves. We can embrace new challenges, or we can remain clinging to the sta-

tus quo that will inevitably lead to an irreversible decline. We are already too many years behind in terms of produc-tivity, competitiveness and the welfare of our citizens. For Europe and for all of us, the moment to prove ourselves is here. We need courage and clearness of purpose. We need to accept that the road will be hard and long, but not impossible. Often, it is when we face adversity that we demonstrate the best of who and what we are. But the current crisis is more than just a trial to be overcome, it also offers us an enormous opportunity. An oppor-tunity to show the energy and abilities Europe can muster, the goals it can accomplish. With the vision of a better future comes the responsibility for con-structing it. We need to take action now, to begin preparing for the future. Now is the time for us, as Europe-ans, to show what we are made of, to demonstrate that we are worthy of our history. ■

How to succeed witH fLexicurity

The principal elements underpinning a successful flexicurity model are:

n flexible contracts that bring modernisation to labour legislation and orga-nisation;

n active labour market policies that help workers cope with market changes, temporary unemployment and the transition to new jobs;

n a system of education and training that ensures continued adaptability and employability of workers throughout their working life;

n modern social security systems that provide adequate income support and facilitate mobility in the labour market.

The primary

ingredient

necessary for

us to progress

-a widespread

culture based

on flexibility-

is still lacking.

This is another central issue for a group such as ours, which requires workers with very specific skills, together with the direct involvement of leading universities and research centres. Today the world is a place of rapid and continual change. It’s important not just to be qualified, but also to be able to adapt; again, to be flexible. We need to ensure a creative environ-ment for working and learning as well.

Our companies need employees who not only have the necessary technical knowledge, but also the ability to take on the challenges of open global com-petition. Academia can play a crucial role by ensuring students have both the technical and cultural tools to succeed. The old “mass production lines” are a thing of the past. We need an education roadmap for preparing people to enter our industry. We don’t simply need more engineers, but a much broader

approach that reflects the rapid tech-nological and societal changes. This is why it is also important to strengthen synergies between universi-ties and industry -for example through collaborative initiatives, joint research and internships- in order to guarantee stronger ties and a direct link between the academic and business worlds.We know that, as a sector, our success will increasingly depend on the abil-ity to respond to the unexpected with

decisiveness and creativity. Great ideas coming from creative thinkers are the engine of innovation and the best guar-antee for our collective future. More than ever, our companies -and our society- need young people who have learned how to step out of the box to achieve their goals. A free-think-ing approach is the best way to meld complex organisations, to foster their best energies, so that webs of crea-tive collaborations between rigorous industrial functions and market driven roles can collaborate almost seamlessly towards the achievement of broad, ambitious goals.

sergio MArcHionne

we need to ensure A creAtive environMent for working And LeArning As weLL

A few weeks ago in Brussels, in connection with his role as President of ACEA, Sergio Marchionne took part in a roundtable on the future of mobility, in particular on the key challenges that need to be addressed to ensure a better match between skills and labour needs in future.

13 12/2012

Luc HensProfessor of Economics at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Vesalius College By bringing together a Nobel-laureate and key decision makers from business, labour, and public policy, the conference pro-vided a panorama of views on labour markets rarely seen on the public forum or in academia. The exchange of ideas was stimulating. The debates were topical and -at times- even pas-sionate. The afternoon workshop, where participants were able to go in a one-on-one exchange with Professor Christopher Pissarides, was an opportunity to acquire an even more in-depth insight into recent developments in labour market research.

André SapirProfessor of Economics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and ManagementOften people in the labour union movement put forward the idea that there is a European social model. I think all we have heard at this Congress claims exactly the opposite of that. There is not one European social model. There are many social models in Europe. Some of them are working well, others are not. And in particular, there is a contrast between a Nordic model, where flexibility and security deliver efficient and equitable outcomes, and models in the Mediterranean countries, which deliver nei-ther equity nor efficiency. For the future of work, we must reinvent labour market and social policies, including in the field of education and training. In Europe, we had social models that delivered efficiency and equity during the 30 Golden years that ended in the mid-1970s. Today, many of these models need to be reformed to adapt to the new, rapidly changing reality and achieve once again economic and social con-ditions that are both equitable and efficient.

tHe congress in Pictures

A panorama of views on labour markets

Luc Hens (left) and André Sapir.The debates were topical and -at times- even passionate.

tHe congress in Pictures

14 12/2012

tHe congress in Pictures

15 12/2012

tHe congress in Pictures

16 12/2012

17 12/2012

18 12/2012

Avec les prévisions démographiques et

la succession des crises financières,

économiques et de la dette, la problématique du vieillissement prend

une nouvelle dimension.

Non seulement le vieillisse-ment de la population se poursuit mais on assiste à

présent également à une augmen-tation notable de la population to-tale en Europe et particulièrement en Belgique. En tant que parte-naire financier des secteurs public et non-marchand, Belfius suit ces évolutions de près. Dernièrement, la banque a réalisé une enquête concernant la perception de ces évolutions démographiques dans le public.

Même s’il existe de petites diffé-rences entre générations ou entre régions, elle indique que la problé-matique du vieillissement / rajeu-nissement et son impact sur l’em-ploi, le logement, les pensions, etc. sont clairement un sujet de préoc-cupation tant dans le chef des pou-voir publics que des particuliers, chez les jeunes comme les moins jeunes, et dans les trois régions du pays, commente Marc Lauwers, vice-président du comité de direc-tion.

Davantage de participation

Selon la Commission européenne, la population belge connaîtra une hausse de près de 12% entre 2010 et 2030 et ensuite de 10,7% jusqu’en 2060. Dans le même temps, le recul attendu de la part relative de la po-pulation dans la tranche d’âge 15-64 ans (de 65,9% en 2010 à 60,7% en 2030 et 58,2% en 2060) entraînera inévitablement une hausse néces-saire du degré de participation et la prolongation de la carrière active. A politique inchangée, toutefois, la Belgique continuera à enregistrer des résultats faibles sur ce plan.

Dans les prochaines années, il fau-dra en fait s’attaquer non seulement au vieillissement mais également au rajeunissement de la popula-tion, en raison de la migration nette. Dans notre pays, la population en Flandre vieillira nettement plus vite que dans les autres régions. C’est surtout entre 2020 et 2040 que le coefficient de vieillissement (les +de 65 ans par rapport aux 15-64 ans) s’accélérera considérable-ment pour passer de 125 à près de 185%. Jusqu’en 2020, la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale sera confrontée à un rajeunissement marqué. Les différences entre les provinces, les villes et les communes sont actuel-lement également très prononcées et vont de 37 à 256%. Le nombre d’individus de plus de 65 ans pro-gressera de plus de 50% entre 2012 et 2030.

L’impact du solde migratoire est beaucoup plus élevé que le solde naturel dans plus de 80% des com-munes. Le renouvellement de la population lui est imputable pour plus de 50%. Le besoin de struc-tures d’accueil de la petite enfance et d’écoles mais aussi de soins à domicile, de maisons de repos et de soins, d’encadrement médical, etc.

Du fossé des générations au pacte des générations

Une opportunité de collaboration

En tant que partenaire financier des pouvoirs publics et d’institutions du secteur non-marchand en Belgique, Belfius s’attache à suivre de près les évolutions sociodémographiques et à développer des solutions face aux constats qui en découlent. Pour sensibiliser également le public aux impacts sociétaux de ces évolutions, via le concept «Generation United”, la banque a créé une plateforme en ligne grâce à laquelle elle entend non seulement fournir des informations mais également susciter un débat et un échange d’idées sur ce thème entre les générations: www.GenerationUnited.be. L’éventail des services nés de l’observation de cette problématique sont également regroupés sur ce site.“Elle dépasse de loin l’épargne-pension ou le planning successoral. C’est pourquoi la solidarité entre les générations occupe une place centrale dans ce concept. Plutôt qu’une question de différences, le vieillissement est avant tout une opportunité de collaboration entre les générations: les plus jeunes aident les moins jeunes et les moins jeunes aident les plus jeunes.”

© M

. Cro

zet/B

IT

Une enquête et un site en ligneL’impact sur l’emploi, les pensions, les soins de santé et le logement souligne clairement la nécessité d’adopter une approche intergénérationnelle de la problématique du vieillissement / rajeunissement, estime Marc Lauwers. C’est pourquoi Belfius a mandaté le bureau d’études iVox pour mener une enquête en ligne auprès de 2.500 Belges afin de connaître leur opinion concernant une douzaine d’assertions relatives au logement, au travail, aux pensions, etc. Réalisé du 27 août au 7 septembre 2012, elle montre clairement qu’il n’y a en la matière certainement pas de “fossé des générations” et qu’au contraire, les points de vue des uns et des autres sont relativement proches, même s’il y a ici et là certaines nuances. Ainsi, les 50-65 ans sont bien plus souvent d’avis que les 18-29 ans que les nouvelles formes de logement telles que “l’habitat kangourou” (différentes générations sous un même toit) peuvent constituer une solution à la problématique du logement (75% contre 61%). Par contre, la proportion de répondants qui considèrent que la cohabitation de plusieurs générations au travail est un atout, dans la mesure où l’on peut apprendre les uns des autres, est légèrement plus élevée chez les 18-29 ans que chez les 50-65 ans (86% contre 71%). Outre les différences entre les générations, la banque et l’institut de sondage se sont également penchés sur d’éventuelles différences entre les trois régions du pays. Ainsi, le fait de prendre sa retraite au plus tard à 65 ans est considéré par une proportion de personnes légèrement supérieure en Wallonie qu’à Bruxelles ou en Flandre (87% contre resp. 74% et 75%) comme un droit acquis auquel on ne souhaite pas déroger. Par ailleurs, on se dit souvent convaincu en Flandre qu’en Wallonie ou Bruxelles que les jeunes et les moins jeunes doivent passer plus de temps libre ensemble (46% contre respectivement 66% et 59%).

L’infortune de la jeune générationDans presque toutes les régions, l’immense majorité des populations n’est pas satisfaite des emplois de qualité qui lui sont proposés, estime le Bureau International du Travail. Ces derniers se font rares, surtout dans l’Union européenne où seuls les emplois temporaires ont enregis-tré une hausse.Un rapport du BIT met en garde contre une génération “traumatisée” de jeunes travailleurs confrontés à un dangereux mélange de chômage élevé, d’inactivité accrue et de travail précaire dans les pays dévelop-pés, ainsi qu’au nombre toujours élevé de travailleurs pauvres dans les pays en développement.Selon le rapport, “l’infortune de la génération qui arrive sur le mar-ché du travail en cette période grande récession ne se traduit pas seu-lement par le malaise actuel suscité par le chômage, le sous-emploi et le stress des risques sociaux liés au chômage et à l’oisiveté prolongée; elle pourrait aussi avoir des conséquences à long terme, sous forme de rémunérations plus faibles à l’avenir et de défiance vis-à-vis du système économique et politique.”

doit faire partie intégrante de la poli-tique menée.

Les coûts liés au vieillissement sont revus à la hausse chaque année en raison de la détérioration du cli-mat économique et du manque de politique adaptée. Le total des allo-cations sociales en Belgique est inférieur de 28% à celui de nos trois voisins en pourcentage du PIB. Il en va de même pour les coûts des soins de santé (8% du PIB). Leur hausse attendue est néanmoins beaucoup plus marquée. L’augmentation cer-taine de la charge des pensions et des coûts des soins de santé pourra cependant être compensée, dans une moindre mesure, par les éco-nomies espérées au niveau des al-locations familiales et du chômage.

Les dépenses consacrées à la pension

Les dépenses consacrées à la pen-sion légale en Belgique, en pour-centage du PIB, sont assez faibles comparées à la moyenne de la zone euro. Leur hausse dans les pro-chaines années sera relativement importante compte tenu du nombre croissant de bénéficiaires. Ce pour-centage passera de quelque 11% à près de 16% en 2030.

De plus, la pension nominale payée dans notre pays est plutôt modeste. En 2011, elle atteignait un peu plus de 800 euros par mois pour un sala-rié. Le risque de pauvreté des pen-sionnés belges augmente par rap-

port à celui de la population active, tandis qu’il est en baisse dans les pays voisins. Ils sont plus de 20% à courir ce risque. Maintenir le pou-voir d’achat relève dès lors de la gageure.

Le parc de logements est assez vé-tuste. Près de 40% des habitations datent d’avant la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. À Bruxelles, ce pourcentage monte à près de 67%, contre respectivement 29% et 50% en Flandre et en Wallonie. Environ 43% des logements ont une super-ficie inférieure à 104m2, mais ce chiffre passe à 78% à Bruxelles.

Les prix ont grimpé

Le degré d’équipement des habita-tions peut certainement être amé-lioré, étant donné que 30% n’ont pas de salle de bain et 15% ne possèdent pas de chauffage central. Entre-temps, les prix immobiliers ont for-tement grimpé, bien que l’on assiste à une certaine stagnation ces der-nières années. Trouver un logement payable est un sérieux problème tant pour les jeunes que pour les plus âgés.

“Dans ce contexte, les pouvoirs pu-blics, les entreprises et les ménages seront amenés à poser des choix fondamentaux en termes financiers et de définir le modèle de société dans lequel les jeunes, les actifs et les plus âgés auront suffisam- ment de possibilités d’épanouisse-ment.” n

19 12/2012

© K

. Cas

sidy/

BIT