Pieter Vanhuysse, from the German non-profit foundation Bertelsmann Stiftung, conducted a study on intergenerational justice (PDF) in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member states. The OECD is comprised of 34 democratic, market economies and also holds discussions with more than 70 non-member economies. The study examined 29 of 34 member states. Vanhuysse focused on three main questions: (1) How well do OECD member states live up to the principles of intergenerational justice, (2) How clearly such principles can be measured, and (3) how can cross-national comparisons help foster improved strategizing in policymaking?
Intergenerational justice refers to government policies proportionately or disproportionately favoring one generation or another. Specifically, this study ranks which OECD countries’ domestic policies benefit their populations more or less evenly. The study explicitly states its approach is neither empirically or theoretically exhaustive: “achieving a full measure of social reality that is at once concise and readily understandable as well as precise and comprehensive is a rather utopian aim.”
Vanhuysse used data from the Intergenerational Justice Index (IJI) created from Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Governance Indicators project. He focused on three general areas for intergenerational justice: environmental, economic-fiscal, and social aspects. These three areas are further narrowed into four specific measurements: public debt per child, ecological footprint, child poverty relative to old-age poverty, and imbalances in social spending patterns for young and old.
The most intergenerationally just OECD countries are Estonia, South Korea, Israel, New Zealand, and Hungary. The most intergenerationally unjust countries are the U.S., Japan, Italy, Greece, and Canada. The U.S. is the least intergenerationally just OECD country, according to this study. The report suggests that sticking to the policy status quo would “actually be equivalent to perpetuating a bad deal for young generations.”
The gap between the countries with greatest intergenerational justice and least is astonishing. Estonia’s public debt per child is “only” $6,400. However, Japanese children bear a staggering $794,000 apiece. The environmental IJI metric found Hungary is leaving behind the smallest environmental footprint (3.6 global hectares per capita) while the Denmark and the U.S. more than double this amount. Similarly, the child poverty to old-age poverty ratio is strikingly different. North European states have the lowest rates of child poverty (3.7 percent to 7 percent). Conversely, in the U.S. child poverty rates are at a stunning 21 percent. When it comes to imbalances in social spending, Poland spends 8.6 times more on its elderly citizens than it does on its youth. By comparison, New Zealand—which has a similar demographic structure—spends only 3.4 times as much on its elderly.
Continuing with its pragmatic approach, the study lists several policy recommendations and issues for continued discussion. Vanhuysse calls for a “double whammy intergenerational earmarking” strategy. This strategy would use increased tax revenues from one dimension of intergenerational injustice and spend it on another. For example, a country could increase taxes on activities that destroy the environment, and then apply the new revenue to initiatives to reduce child poverty. He also posits that investment in high-quality ear childhood education can secure intergenerational justice. He states that evidence suggests these early investments yield long-term positive effects. The last policy recommendation Vanhuysse makes is unique. He contends that older OECD populations are disproportionately favored in the electorate. Thus, he calls for something called proxy voting. Parents would receive a one-half extra vote for every child they have. This way, children would be represented in the electorate.
While this report openly states is neither empirically or theoretically exhaustive, Vanhuysse’s study can help OECD policymakers immediately. By 2050, almost 10 percent of OECD population will be over 80 years old. The burden of taking care of the elderly will be placed upon shrinking younger populace. Therefore, it is important for OECD policymakers create a just intergenerational environment and not place an inordinate amount of resources on the elderly thereby creating a “wasted” or “lost” young generation.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
a global affairs media network
Intergenerational Justice in Aging Societies
October 11, 2013
Pieter Vanhuysse, from the German non-profit foundation Bertelsmann Stiftung, conducted a study on intergenerational justice (PDF) in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member states. The OECD is comprised of 34 democratic, market economies and also holds discussions with more than 70 non-member economies. The study examined 29 of 34 member states. Vanhuysse focused on three main questions: (1) How well do OECD member states live up to the principles of intergenerational justice, (2) How clearly such principles can be measured, and (3) how can cross-national comparisons help foster improved strategizing in policymaking?
Intergenerational justice refers to government policies proportionately or disproportionately favoring one generation or another. Specifically, this study ranks which OECD countries’ domestic policies benefit their populations more or less evenly. The study explicitly states its approach is neither empirically or theoretically exhaustive: “achieving a full measure of social reality that is at once concise and readily understandable as well as precise and comprehensive is a rather utopian aim.”
Vanhuysse used data from the Intergenerational Justice Index (IJI) created from Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Sustainable Governance Indicators project. He focused on three general areas for intergenerational justice: environmental, economic-fiscal, and social aspects. These three areas are further narrowed into four specific measurements: public debt per child, ecological footprint, child poverty relative to old-age poverty, and imbalances in social spending patterns for young and old.
The most intergenerationally just OECD countries are Estonia, South Korea, Israel, New Zealand, and Hungary. The most intergenerationally unjust countries are the U.S., Japan, Italy, Greece, and Canada. The U.S. is the least intergenerationally just OECD country, according to this study. The report suggests that sticking to the policy status quo would “actually be equivalent to perpetuating a bad deal for young generations.”
The gap between the countries with greatest intergenerational justice and least is astonishing. Estonia’s public debt per child is “only” $6,400. However, Japanese children bear a staggering $794,000 apiece. The environmental IJI metric found Hungary is leaving behind the smallest environmental footprint (3.6 global hectares per capita) while the Denmark and the U.S. more than double this amount. Similarly, the child poverty to old-age poverty ratio is strikingly different. North European states have the lowest rates of child poverty (3.7 percent to 7 percent). Conversely, in the U.S. child poverty rates are at a stunning 21 percent. When it comes to imbalances in social spending, Poland spends 8.6 times more on its elderly citizens than it does on its youth. By comparison, New Zealand—which has a similar demographic structure—spends only 3.4 times as much on its elderly.
Continuing with its pragmatic approach, the study lists several policy recommendations and issues for continued discussion. Vanhuysse calls for a “double whammy intergenerational earmarking” strategy. This strategy would use increased tax revenues from one dimension of intergenerational injustice and spend it on another. For example, a country could increase taxes on activities that destroy the environment, and then apply the new revenue to initiatives to reduce child poverty. He also posits that investment in high-quality ear childhood education can secure intergenerational justice. He states that evidence suggests these early investments yield long-term positive effects. The last policy recommendation Vanhuysse makes is unique. He contends that older OECD populations are disproportionately favored in the electorate. Thus, he calls for something called proxy voting. Parents would receive a one-half extra vote for every child they have. This way, children would be represented in the electorate.
While this report openly states is neither empirically or theoretically exhaustive, Vanhuysse’s study can help OECD policymakers immediately. By 2050, almost 10 percent of OECD population will be over 80 years old. The burden of taking care of the elderly will be placed upon shrinking younger populace. Therefore, it is important for OECD policymakers create a just intergenerational environment and not place an inordinate amount of resources on the elderly thereby creating a “wasted” or “lost” young generation.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
