Skip to content
IEA InfoIEA Info
  • About Us
    • Who we are
      • Staff
      • Trustees
      • Advisory Council
      • Academic Advisory Council
      • Fellows and Academic Advisors
      • Nobel Prize Winning Economists
      • IEA Award Winners
    • What We Do
    • FAQs
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
      • Jobs
  • Digital
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Shadow Monetary Policy Committee
    • Peer Review Protocol
  • Blog
  • Media
    • Press Releases
    • In The Media
    • Media Enquiries
  • Students
  • International
    • Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity
    • EPICENTER
    • Translations
    • IEA Primers
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Corporate Partnerships
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • IEA Book Club
    • Patreon
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Events
    • Past Events
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us
Markets and Morality

Double trouble – how the population crisis will bring about an economic crisis

Philip Booth
28 September 2015

SUGGESTED

previous
Regulation

The plastic bag levy illustrates the difficulty of Pigouvian taxation

24 September 2015
next
Housing and Planning

Why greenbelt reform is not a lost cause

25 September 2015
latest
Economic Theory

Do market mechanisms have a role to play in national defence?

4 December 2023
Most developed countries have set up systems of welfare that depend on population growth to sustain them. Unfortunately, we are destined for population contraction and an age of government austerity that could last for a generation. To put it simply, the Catholic Church is right about the importance of children and has been right in its warnings about the welfare state. The next generation will reap the whirlwind.

It is difficult to find a clearly articulated case in Catholic social teaching for modern-style welfare states involving huge government intervention in the lives of families combined with enormous transfers totalling around a quarter of national income. Certainly, Pope Leo XIII’s great encyclical, Rerum novarum, was pretty clear, at one point arguing that the government should come to the aid of families only as a last resort: “True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid…”. Pope Leo then went on to praise the independent welfare associations which developed quickly in the late nineteenth century. These were especially common in Britain. By 1910, there were seven million members of registered friendly societies alone in the UK.

The growth of the modern welfare state: a warning

Forty years after Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno made explicit something which had always been implicit in Catholic social teaching – the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, the state should not take over the functions of the family, civil society and lower levels of government. There is no doubt that the state did take over these roles at the time of the creation of modern welfare states. Indeed, on the 100th anniversary of Rerum novarum, Pope John Paul II warned us directly about the growth of state welfare. Distinguishing carefully between “state” and “society”, he argued that the modern state had taken over functions that belonged with society.

Strangely, just as welfare states are drowning in a sea of debt whilst also increasingly being seen as at least partly responsible for lower levels of family formation and employment, the Church has started to question welfare states rather less. In 2009, the encyclical letter Caritas in veritate praised government social security systems. And our own Bishops Conference pre-election letter not only called for the government to ensure that all had access to healthcare but specifically called for the NHS to be supported. Supporting a system of providing healthcare, which is the most centralised, bureaucratic and government-dominated in the developed world (with the possible exception of Canada), is hardly in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. And the outcomes of our NHS are poor, as Catholic social teaching might predict.

Discriminating against the family

Welfare states are not the same everywhere. Some – like our own – discriminate against marriage and family formation more than others. Continental European welfare models, on the other hand, are often much more ‘anti-work’ than the UK system. But a further, very worrying feature of welfare systems which is shared right across the developed world is that they are “anti-young”. They are piling up trillions of pounds of debt. Unless, there is radical reform, the next generation will face much higher taxes, much reduced government spending or – quite likely in some countries – complete economic breakdown.

It is strange that no Catholic social teaching documents have commented on this issue given its seriousness. It is especially strange because there are two causes of the problem. One is the development of the government-backed systems of welfare that involve the transfer of enormous resources between generations. The other is the lack of children. Welfare states have shown a lack of respect for the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching and the population at large has shown a lack of respect for the teachings of Humanae vitae. The combination is toxic.

What precisely is the problem?

In generations past, the family was the main vehicle for welfare provision in old age. This would be supplemented – even amongst the lowest paid – by saving and sometimes by formal pension provision. In other words, people would have children or set aside the economic resources which would provide for old age or both. Just as parents looked after their young, when the time came the young looked after their parents.

When state pension systems were introduced, it was thought that the older generation could have a bonus. Pensions were to be paid for not by saving, but by the taxes of the current workers – thus enabling the post-war pensioners to have higher pensions immediately. Because of the baby boom, there was, at first, a high number of workers relative to pensioners making the system easy to finance. It was assumed that, in future years, when it came to the turn of the younger generation to receive their pensions, the taxes of the workers would look after them too. This is sometimes called – especially in France – ‘inter-generational solidarity’. However, in reality, the system represents a pact between today’s workers and a group of people who have not even been born – and, indeed, may not be born.

In theory, this system can go on forever. But, in practice, it requires a healthy birth rate. The problem arises when birth rates fall and life expectation rises so that pensions are being paid for longer and there are relatively fewer workers paying taxes.

The same problem arises with healthcare. The majority of health spending occurs near the end of life. Again, as populations age and the working generation shrinks in absolute or relative terms, health care funded only through taxes, rather than partially through saving during a person’s working life, become very difficult to sustain.

The result has been much higher taxes to fund a growing elderly population from the shrinking (at least in relative terms) working population. This then damages employment. On average in the EU, taxes paid by the employer and employee sum to a total equal to nearly 70 per cent of take-home wages for low paid workers. When people move from unemployment into work the amount of additional income they receive after taxes is very low. It is, sadly, not surprising that youth unemployment rates are a shocking 22 per cent in the EU. Perhaps even more shocking is that, at the height of the pre-crisis boom, youth unemployment was over 15 per cent: the bankers are not to blame for this!

Vicious Circle

And then there is a vicious circle. At least to some extent, people vote in elections to promote their own interests rather than to promote the ‘common good’ as the Catholic Church teaches. This means that, as pensioners become more numerous relative to workers, the more numerous older generation will tend to vote to protect its benefits. We have seen this reflected in almost every action of the current government and its predecessor. Between 2007 and 2014, the incomes of pensioner households rose by 10 per more than inflation whilst the incomes of those of working age fell by 4 per cent after inflation. David Cameron has quite deliberately and transparently protected pensioners – even better-off pensioners – from welfare cuts and is increasing pensions much faster than inflation.

The problem is set to get worse – much worse. Germany’s population is projected to fall by 11 million in less than 50 years with nearly all of this fall concentrated within the working population. This is even after allowing for inward migration. You might think that Catholic countries would fare better. They don’t. On average, families are having only slightly more than one child (for example, 1.4 in the case of Italy) and populations are in danger of collapse with far fewer workers supporting more pensioners and paying for increased healthcare costs. Catholic strongholds such as Portugal, Poland, Slovakia and Croatia are projected to see population falls of up to a quarter within the lifetime of today’s forty-year-olds. Outside the EU, Russia and Japan may see population implosion.

Economists have tried to calculate the total value of all the healthcare and pensions obligations that governments have promised to future older generations. In round numbers they amount to five-to-seven times governments’ official debt figures. To put it another way, to balance the books over the long term the figures suggest that most Western countries would have to reduce total government spending by about one-quarter or reduce social insurance (including health) spending by a half. It does not matter how you try to add up the numbers, they don’t add up.

The future

Where do we go from here? Systems of social insurance more firmly based on the family, saving and mutual associations would be a good start. In the UK, a priority must be more savings for pensions and an end to discrimination against marriage in the tax and benefits systems. It would help if the problem was recognised in those parts of the Catholic Church which are supposed to show an interest in issues of economics and politics. Economists have been talking about these problems for well over 25 years and yet you never even hear any recognition of the problem from the Church’s Justice and Peace Commission. Given the near-bankruptcy of many EU states and the appalling levels of unemployment in Europe, this is a terrible omission. This is especially so given that the answer to the problem lies in re-examining and applying Catholic social teaching on the welfare state and Catholic teaching on marriage and family life.

Prof Philip Booth is the IEA’s Editorial and Programme Director, and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham.

This article was first published by Faith.

Philip Booth
  • email

Academic and Research Director, IEA

Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


3 thoughts on “Double trouble – how the population crisis will bring about an economic crisis”

  1. D.R. Myddelton
    Posted 28/09/2015 at 15:15 | Permalink

    Given that the state pension, in total, is a large amount, I’m surprised that we haven’t made, and don’t seem to be making, faster progress towards raising the age at which the government starts paying the state pension. |I believe it’s going up to 67 years old in about 2020; but what about beyond that? The last time I checked, life expectancy at birth was rising by about an extra three years every decade. That would suggest that we ought to be raising the state pension age at least as fast (and probably faster, to start ‘catching up the shortfall that has been allowed to develop). Of course there needs to be sufficient notice, but it seems irresponsible for those now in government not to be giving this large item in the government budget more urgent attention.

  2. Benji
    Posted 28/09/2015 at 16:25 | Permalink

    How about we let children leave school at 14, if they have a full time apprenticeship to go to. Then, add one year to the age where the State pension can be drawn for every year in full time education afterwards. I would reduce the retirement age to 64. The point being those who have done manual work for 40 years up until that point will be knackered and should be retired earlier than those with a university education and a white collar job.

  3. philip
    Posted 28/09/2015 at 19:39 | Permalink

    @benji if we keep a state pension, I am very happy for it to be based entirely on the number of years worked (obviously with some adjustment for part time). That would essentially achieve your objective. And, yes, very happy for people to be in work from 14 once they have passed some kind of assessment in the basics.That sort of thing would help

Comments are closed.


SHARE

Follow IEA on Twitter Like IEA on Facebook Connect with IEA on LinkedIn

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS


The IEA is an educational charity and free market think tank.

Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of the markets in solving economic and social problems. Given the current economic challenges facing Britain and the wider global environment, it is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare and lower levels of regulation.

About the IEA Donate
  • About Us
  • Staff
  • What We Do
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Donate Now
  • Publications
  • In The Media
  • Press Release
  • Media Enquiries
Newsletter signup
Keep in touch with the IEA
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch
  • Follow

Copyright © Institute of Economic Affairs | REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

XWe use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Read More
REJECTCookie settings
ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
Powered by CookieYes