Hvis man anerkender notatets metode – hvilket så er mere end tvivlsomt af velbeskrevne årsager – se også Christian Bjørnskovs kritik samt link til bl.a. Andreas Berghs kritik, så konkluderer man, at

“And second, there is surprisingly little evidence for the growth-destroying effects of fiscal
redistribution at a macroeconomic level. We do find some mixed evidence that very large
redistributions may have direct negative effects on growth duration, such that the overall
effect—including the positive effect on growth through lower inequality—may be roughly
growth-neutral. But for non-extreme redistributions, there is no evidence of any adverse direct
effect. The average redistribution, and the associated reduction in inequality, is thus associated
with higher and more durable growth.

We need to be mindful about over-interpreting these results, especially for policy purposes. It
is hard to go from these sorts of correlations to firm statements about causality. We have not
accounted for the possible effects that redistribution may have on market inequality. We have
emphasized the uncertainty caused by the scarcity of reliable data, particularly about
redistribution. Our measure of redistribution captures only direct taxes and subsidies, for
example, so we shed no direct light on the redistributive effects of in-kind government
provision of health and education which a priori would seem, if anything, to be more growthfriendly than the measures we account for.

Finally, we know from history and first principles that after some point redistribution will be destructive to growth, and that beyond some point extreme equality also cannot be conducive to growth.

Du henholder dig til et figenblad – ikke underligt fordi et er en statistisk sammenhæng, noget andet er det specifikke tilfælde, Her Danmark, som er karakteriseret af en endog meget høj grad af omfordeling og efterfølgende lav ulighed målt på netto gini.

Nu vil jeg under alle omstændigheder advare mod at bruge notatet til noget på grund af de metodiske problemer, men hvis man gør og vil indplacere Danmark i det kommer man ikke udenom at konklusionen vil være at vi er en del ude over det punkt, hvor notatet kan tillægge positive effekter af yderligere udligning og negative effekter ikke kan afvises.

Dine afsluttende normative betragtninger omkring tryghed vil jeg ikke kommentere her.

Men du kan jo overveje hvor i figur 4. på side 16 i rapporten Danmark befinder sig.

Med venlig hilsen
Niels Westy Munch-Holbek

Og:

“In particular, the negative effect of very large transfers seems to disappear when certain other factors are controlled for, such as exogenous shocks, institutions, debt liabilities and openness (Column 4).”

At rapporten kan bruges som argument for mindre omfordeling i Danmark er derfor usandt. “Worst-case”-scenario er altså at graden af omfordeling er vækst-neutral – og dertil skal så lægges de positive effekter ved et mere trygt samfund etc.

Vh. Peter Ahrenfeldt Schrøder, blogger på Pio