Summer news roundup: Mermaid cage fight

The New York Times reports that the estate of Edvard Eriksen, the sculptor who created the famous Little Mermaid that sits on her haunches in Langelinie Harbor – one of Copenhagen's biggest tourist draws – is suing the village of Asaa in northern Jutland for displaying another version of the Hans Christian Andersen figure. The heirs of the original sculptor not only demand compensation but insist that the “copy” be destroyed.

The original scuplture was a gift to the city of Copenhagen in 1913 from Carlsberg Brewery founder Carl Jacobsen. The sculptors' heirs have often sued artists over rights to the mermaid image, with some success, and the copyright expires in 2029. The Asaa Mermaid sculptor, Palle Mørk, denied deliberate appropriation. His mermaid is made of granite, whereas the Copenhagen version is made of bronze, and is chubbier. "I didn't think we destroyed art works in Denmark," said Mørk. "That's something the Taliban do." 

New Right chair promoting public-sector layoffs. Photo: Søren Bidstrup.

So sue me too!
Now Mermaid No. 3 is stealing attention. The libertarian Nye Borgerlige (New Right) party launched its biggest policy campaign, featuring cuts in taxes and social services (DK). It succeeded in positioning itself as not only the most anti-tax and most anti-immigration party but also the one with the hottest party leader, Pernille Vermund, shown above. She's "ready with a drastic plan," says the ad, "Will make big changes to Denmark." The main beneficiary of the campaign may be the Danish People’s Party, which had been losing voters to the New Right but now stands to reclaim some who didn't realize how much the party wants to reduce social welfare.

Combatting EU bureaucracy

The Danish People’s Party can use a boost because Morten Messerschmidt, its vice chair and “crown prince,” has been given a conditional six-month prison sentence for swindling EU funds (DK). The money had been intended for a conference in Skagen, Denmark, in 2015 on European issues involving MELD, an international (Euroskeptical) conservative confederation, but the conference apparently consisted only of the party’s usual summer meetings. The charges also included falsifying EU documents. Messerschmidt is known as a sharp debater, but his party colleagues' testimony at the extraordinary trial gave no support for his position. He will appeal the sentence.

Nursing a grudge

The government pronounced sentence on the two-month nurses’ strike (DK). With no progress in negotiations, it intervened and ordered the nurses back to work, causing some to doubt the continuing efficacy of the "Danish model" of labor relations. The hospitals were accumulating about two years of backlogs in elective surgery, and the nurses had exhausted their strike funds. The union never gained much public support for an additional wage increase. Perhaps they thought they would be rewarded for their heroic efforts during the pandemic, but people apparently had their enough of their own pandemic problems to worry about.

Coronavirus DK: Critique of the state as savior

In an opinion piece in the daily Information, former Minister for Technology and Research Tommy Ahlers from the Liberal Party, warns against seeing the containment of the coronavirus as the triumph of the welfare state. Ahlers, who was appointed to the preceding center-right cabinet from the private sector, wants to offer a “conservative answer” (DK) to the prevailing narrative of the coronavirus crisis. In that scenario, a strong, centralized state was necessary to stop the spread of the infection and to support the economy. It fit perfectly with the social democratic worldview, and Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen succeeded in portraying the dangers of the situation that required sweeping protections and precautions.

Ahlers acknowledges that such actions were necessary during the outbreak, but criticizes the treatment of the private sector during the reopening phase, which he describes as “absurd theater.” He argues that the precautionary principle was applied too indiscriminately and without adequate consideration of and consultation with the private sector. He gives the example of hotels’ being allowed to open everywhere but in Copenhagen - visitors could simply stay in the suburbs and visit the city during the day. The policy discouraged tourism more than it prevented the spread of the infection.

Who pays for the hospitals and healthcare anyway?
During the current economic recovery from the crisis, Ahlers does not want businesses to be perceived as recipients of support from the state that now must pay their share. They needed temporary support because they cooperated with the government’s lockdown. He repeats the right wing’s general contention that the welfare state depends on the tax revenues generated by the private sector and asserts the need for a balance between the public and private spheres. He argues that a strong market will be crucial in bringing the country back into sound economic growth. It is essential in creating jobs as well as the new technology that is necessary for achieving the government’s ambitions, for example the reduction of carbon emissions.

Smittestop poster: "Take it easy - your privacy is safe." Photo: Smittestop.

Surveillance for you and not for me
A fresh example of the state’s perhaps overstepping its emergency mandate appeared in another Information article. As noted earlier, the Smitttestop contact-tracing app has been downloaded many hundred thousand times, and researchers were satisfied that it played a useful role in limiting the spread of the coronavirus. Now it turns out that employees of the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs have been forbidden to use the app (DK) on their work phones and tablets because of concerns about data security. Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke has several times assured people that the app was secure and protected users’ privacy.

The problem is with bluetooth. For the app to function and notify users that someone with COVID-19 is in proximity, users must have the bluetooth turned on, and that is what the Foreign Ministry objects to. “Bluetooth is an open channel, and it is relatively easy to penetrate for someone who wants to follow what’s happening,” says Erik Brøgger Rasmussen of the Foreign Ministry. Jesper Lund, chair of the IT Political Association of Denmark, finds the double standard “a little hypocritical.” Heunicke is on vacation and the paper was not able to obtain a response from him.

Why there is less social justice warfare in Denmark

Why doesn’t Denmark have as much controversy about social justice issues as do the US and the UK?

First, racial and ethnic tensions are not as acute because Denmark does not have the same history of slavery and colonialism. Slave trade was conducted in the Danish West Indies until 1848, but there is no segment of the Danish population that has descended from slaves and endured centuries of discrimination. There is an ethnic underclass, but only around 13 percent of the population has a foreign background. The largest group are the descendants of “guest workers” who came mainly from Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to remember a case of the police killing a person of color person under suspicious circumstances.

Second, conditions for women are more favorable because of the extensive welfare state and a tradition of greater egalitarianism.

Third, the country has historically been one of the most tolerant towards LGBT+ groups. It was the first to recognize same-sex partnerships, and it legalized same-sex marriage in 2012. 

Fewer enemies
Fourth, the right-wing radicalism that provokes activism on the Left is less extensive and prominent. White supremacist and neo-Nazi groups are very small and are looked down upon by the general population. The extremist Stram Kurs (Hard Line) Party, which advocated deporting all Muslims, received 1.8 percent of the votes in the 2019 election and didn’t qualify for seats in Parliament.

Fifth, universities, where most social justice agitation and scandals have taken place in the US, have an infrastructure in Denmark that makes them less susceptible to activism. They are not residential colleges. There are some dormitories, but very few are located on campus. Many students commute from home or live in apartments. They do not congregate as often as American students in clubs and interest organizations and perhaps for that reason do not develop a tribal mentality. They are also more professionally oriented. They do not simply “go to college” to get a B.A. They choose their major fields when they apply and begin to specialize after one year. It is likely that more of them are more interested in pursuing their careers than in political activism. Additionally, they aren’t burdened by the prospect of a sizeable undischargeable debt upon graduation. 

Sixth, Twitter, which offers the quickest and easiest way to engage in ideological warfare, is less widespread in Denmark than in the US. Facebook is the most popular social media forum here. It does sometimes attract heated debate but has less rapid-fire escalation of denunciation and insult-trading and, in the extreme, mob frenzy. 

Marxism was here first
Seventh, the European socialist tradition already offered a theoretical framework and vocabulary for addressing social injustice. It was more firmly established and intellectually coherent than, say, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and intersectionalism, which need to explain themselves. 

Eighth (a corollary of the preceding), there were already well-established political parties on the far Left with a voice in Parliament and influence on center-left administrations. The Red-Green Party’s platform is more extreme than the American progressive movement’s. Activists have a channel to promote their causes and need not always be an protest element that is not taken seriously.

Ninth (something that could have been mentioned first), some of the main objectives of the social justice movement have already been accomplished here, most obviously universal health care, tuition-free university, and policies to prevent environmental damage and climate change. There is not as much crony capitalism and lobbyist influence to protest against.

Tenth, children here are less “coddled” than Americans, as famously documented by Lukianoff and Haidt. They are less sheltered and are encouraged to be more responsible for themselves and therefore less likely to develop an entitlement and grievance mentality.

Biology 101 
Finally (and more speculative), both academics and, where relevant, politicians appear to be stronger adherents and defenders of free speech and a scientific viewpoint than their American counterparts. Denmark is proud of its democratic tradition, which is linked to its egalitarianism. It has high voter turnouts and numerous local organizations and cooperative housing associations founded and run by citizen groups that span socioeconomic strata. There is less tendency to attempt to silence and suppress opposing political positions and probably less need for students to insulate themselves from exposure to ideas that might make them uncomfortable.

I don’t know how deeply social constructionism has influenced the social sciences here, but I doubt that the natural sciences are seriously threatened by ideological campaigns to deny the distinction between sex and gender, for example. If university faculty are under less pressure because of the factors listed above, then there is less need for them to cede an evidence-based approach.

The prime minister’s New Year’s speech

Every New Year’s Eve, the queen gives a brief speech on the state of Denmark, and the next evening, the prime minister does the same. The latter is not intended to be a definitive status report on the nation or a detailed program for the future, but it does usually offer an outline of the most important items on the political agenda. The tradition often produces well-intentioned sentiments and objectives that people can agree on, even if it lacks concrete measures for realizing them.

This year was Mette Frederiksen’s first such speech (UK) as the leader of the Social Democratic administration that came to power in June. Frederiksen appeared a little nervous, but she delivered it smoothly. Its substance was unusual. She spent most, perhaps two-thirds, of the 15 minute speech on a single subject and one that has never received such prominence in this context: children who should be removed from their homes. That is, children who are so neglected or abused by their parents that they should be transferred to foster parents or a foster home or even adopted by another family. On the face of it, that was an extreme, disquieting message at the conclusion of the biggest family holiday week of the year. 

Save the children
But it was not wholly surprising. During the parliamentary election campaign, Frederiksen announced that she wanted to be the “children’s prime minister,” so she was expected to take steps to make good on her promise. The issue falls under the headings of social mobility, equal opportunity, protection of the weak, and solidarity, which are core Social Democratic principles that are generally shared by the entire political spectrum. One of Frederiksen’s first major acts in office was to make an official apology (DK) to a group of boys who were abused in a foster home in the years 1946 to 1976. Their treatment gave rise to an extensive report on the mistreatment of foster children, but Parliament had voted against a formal apology.

Besides its length, this part of the speech was striking for its hard line and blunt criticism of irresponsible parents. There was hardly a mention of support or counseling for such families. Far too many parents have had “too many chances” to redress their harmful behavior. Their children should get a new home earlier in their lives, and it should offer better conditions than such alternatives have previously afforded. They should not be shuttled around through foster homes and schools, for example. In a line that pleased the nationalist constituencies, Frederiksen added that children’s entitlement to these things superseded the customs of some “other cultures” that allow corporal punishment of children and do not allow girls the same freedoms as boys. She cited Denmark’s historical tradition of advances in these areas. It was the first country to require schooling for all children and one of the first to prohibit child labor; it banned corporal punishment in the 90s.

The other topics mentioned in the speech fit into the same general concern with fælleskab – solidarity, community, fellowship. The one that was the most widely anticipated, because of campaign proposals, was an effort to enable people who are physically debilitated from their work to take an early retirement. After a brief comment on a stronger line against terrorism threats, returning jihadis and gang crime, Frederiksen concluded on the urgency of measures to prevent climate change, with a nod to the young activists who helped to publicize the stakes. 

Only in a welfare state
Imagine how this focus on adoption would have gone down in an American state of the union address: The “government” thinks it knows what’s best for my children and wants to kidnap them in a new sort of civil forfeiture? It’s inconceivable that this would be a headline topic in any presidential speech on the general condition of the country, even by a female democratic socialist. Frederiksen received the usual criticism (DK) that the plans, particularly for early retirement and climate change, were lacking in detail. But the other party spokespersons generally praised her emphasis on mistreated children, with few questioning whether it was the country’s most pressing issue. 

Perhaps that came partly from politeness toward her first New Year’s Day performance, but it does seem rather odd. After all, foster care concerns about 15,000, or 1 percent, of Danish children. Frederiksen could have clarified the priorities in the recently adopted 2020 budget, such as day care and support for immigrant families, which benefit a great many more children. She could have dwelt longer on the terrorist plot that was discovered and prevented last month. The speech was also noteworthy for completely ignoring a topic that usually receives much attention on this occasion: the economy. But the reason for that is a positive one: the economy is sound and no emergency measures or drastic reforms are needed. Aside from climate, there was nothing on world affairs such as Brexit and on international relations, not even a little joke about defending Greenland from a greedy real estate developer. 

Left swerve

It’s that time of year again – not only for the winter holidays. The Danish Social Democratic administration, along with four smaller parties, reached a deal on the 2020 budget, the first one since the election that brought them to power in June. Since Denmark is one of the few remaining European countries with a left-leaning government in power, it is noteworthy as a barometer of what is possible for the welfare state these days.

More social services and taxes
Here are some of the main features of the agreement: 

• Increased funding for staffing at day-care centers, for hiring additional nurses, for psychiatric services, for schools, and for green initiatives such as the removal of duties on electric cars. 
• The termination of fees for instruction in Danish for foreigners, of a strict residence requirement for unemployment benefits for foreigners and Danes who have lived abroad, and of the “education ceiling,” a limit to one degree that had been intended to get dilatory college students into the workforce faster. 
• A resumption of the policy of accepting “quota refugees.” 

These measures will be financed by increases in taxes and duties on cigarettes, plastic shopping bags, estates, property registration, gambling, aircraft, and leased company cars and by a termination of tax deductions for work telephones and favorable treatment of parents’ purchases of apartments for their children.

The government needed the support of all the left-wing parties, so the crux of the negotiations was concessions to their demands. The increase in day-care staffing was controversial because it will result in higher user fees (DK) since parents usually end up paying 25 percent of the costs – an extra $200 to $400 per year in this case. The perception was that voters were willing to pay for more welfare as well as for more “humane” treatment of refugees and immigrants after the Liberal Party’s infamous series of restrictive measures.

Democracy in action
The right-wing opposition voiced its usual objections that higher spending and taxes, particularly for benefit of foreigners, will hamper business and the property market. Others complained that the green initiatives are too modest and that while domestic funding was increased, contributions to international collaboration were not.

Altogether the budget appears fairly typical of center-left initiatives that are intended to compensate for or undo the excesses of the preceding center-right administration. The Social Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, especially on immigration, and these measures represent only an incremental adjustment, not a realignment. The far Left wanted to avoid a further increase in wealth inequality, and the centrist faction wanted to avoid a net loss of jobs. The budget apparently does not quite fulfill either of these wishes, which is perhaps a sign of a fair compromise. Social services should improve somewhat, economic growth is likely to slow somewhat, and in a few years the country will probably be willing to let the pendulum swing back in the other direction.

Tackling climate Armageddon
The budget agreement was swiftly followed by the adoption of a historic climate bill (DK). It stipulates a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. It was hailed as a model program ready just in time for the COP meeting in Madrid next week. It was endorsed by all the parties in Parliament except for the two smallest right-wing parties, partly because it didn’t contain provisions for maintaining jobs. A crucial factor was an agreement on setting binding intermediate targets in the individual years from 2025 until the overall target dates. 

There were no details about how this reduction will take place, however. That is to be determined by a broad majority of Parliament next spring, with recommendations of concrete measures from the Climate Panel. Those measures (DK) are likely to include a transition from fossil fuels for transportation to electricity and biofuels, more wind turbines and solar energy panels, less use of natural gas, better insulation in older homes, and changes in agriculture that will result in lower meat consumption and food waste.

Progressive landmark or worse than useless?
The initiative did not escape criticism. The targets were called misleading because they covered only domestic production and not emissions from imported goods. The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus, maintains that the expensive plan will have a negligible effect on the climate (DK). The 70 percent reduction alone, which will cost DKK 842 billion ($125 billion), will reduce global warming by only one ten-thousandth (that’s 0.0001) of a degree in 80 years. Lomborg argues, as he has contended before, the money should be spent instead on research and development on alternative energy sources in order to help reduce emissions in the largest developing economies, particularly China and India. 

Lomborg’s critique implies that the new law is merely a form of national virtue signaling. Denmark has had a rationale for such symbolism, though. Its politicians are well aware that it is far too small to have a significant effect on global trends by itself and have therefore sometimes argued that its achievements could serve as inspiring models for others, as formerly when it topped the list of foreign aid contributors. But if these are merely stopgap measures and a waste of resources, then it’s not even sending a good signal. Lomborg has often been dismissed out of hand by climate activists, but he’s not a denier and his position should be addressed directly.

The less happy among us

Except for the free newspaper MX Metroxpress, Politiken is Denmark’s largest-circulation daily (DK). In the past, it was associated with the Social Liberal Party. Now it is formally independent, but it still has a left-leaning political stance and its readership is decidedly sympathetic to socialistic currents in the country and the welfare state in general. One expression of this approach is a tendency to see victims everywhere, that is, to identify people as neglected or slighted and to showcase their plights. Of course the media have responsibility to identify injustice, analyze its origins and workings, and place the blame where it belongs. But Politiken’s treatment seems excessive.

I’m hardly the first to notice this phenomenon, but surveying some examples offers a curious angle on the ramifications of the “welfare society” that produces the highest relative happiness rankings in the world. Few of the opinions represent the newspaper’s own explicit editorial positions. Some reflect the journalist’s or commentator’s views, some belong to the subject of the pieces, and some are from letters to the editor. But they all reflect the kind of topic the paper wants to draw attention to (the paper has an English-language extract).

Disasters natural and man-made

So who are victims? I’m not referring to the obvious, indisputable cases covered by all newspapers: hurricane victims, earthquake victims, the persecuted Rohingya. Migrants who drown in the Mediterranean. Yemenis suffering from hunger, cholera and war. Sri Lankan children kidnapped and sold for adoption. Random shooting victims and residents of Copenhagen neighborhoods with gang wars. These people may be portrayed with more or less pathos and indignation, but they are not the type that Politiken specializes in. Here is a random sample from the past couple of weeks.

Students who feel compelled to take Ritalin and beta blockers because of pressure to perform. Families with more than three children, who because of an administration proposal would see their “child-check” reduced. One hundred and ten Siemens employees in Jutland who were laid off because jobs were moved to France and Germany. Train passengers who are delayed more than an hour and don’t get the free meal they’re entitled to according to an EU directive. Divorced men who miss out on those same “child-checks” because their children have their official address with their mother.

Jobless, pedestrians, girls, the EU

Children who are bullied at school, despite the decline from 25 percent to 10 percent over the past 20 years. Local citizens who must pay for the cleanup of a nature preserve polluted by the military. Young girls who don’t read a book everyday (41 percent instead of 32 percent seven years ago) because peer pressure makes them chat on social media instead. Quota refugees whose reception the Danish administration has postponed until 2018. The unemployed who are denied permanent disability benefits and forced to undergo job training because of a stricter policy. The mentally ill and handicapped who were not approved for aid by their municipalities and won on appeal.

Children seduced into becoming compulsive gamblers by computer games. Pedestrians on a new bridge over Copenhagen Harbor who are endangered by cyclists. The EU, which is being cheated out of EUR 5 billion in taxes by the likes of Google and Facebook. Civil servants who get emails from work on Sunday. People swindled into sending money for purchases of iPhones on Facebook. Senior citizens who want to supplement their low income with home equity loans and are rejected because their income is too low. Young women who have to live with emasculated men.

Smokers, politicians, nurses, trippers

Smokers on welfare who do not get a bonus for quitting smoking as other citizens do. Hospital employees who are overworked and hospital patients who are under-served because of a reduction of funding. An adoptee from India who is perceived as non-Danish. Children born to older mothers who have an elevated risk of ADHD. Politicians whose budget proposals are heavily criticized in the media. University students who can’t find an apartment or room to rent. Children whose parents won’t let them be vaccinated. The world, which will experience more hurricanes because of global warming.

Denmark, which will get a politically unqualified US ambassador. Alcoholics, who can’t get good treatment because Danish culture encourages overdrinking. The unemployed, who are subject to a longer qualifying period for benefits. Students who are abroad for more than one year and according to a legislative proposal would lose their stipend. The elderly, who do not receive adequate care in nursing homes. Babies who suffer from understaffing at day-care centers. Everyone who does not have access to psychedelics, which according to the chair of the Psychedelic Society should be a human right.

Universal basic well-being

I’m not saying that many of these things aren’t legitimate grievances. Only noting that there seems to be an endless supply and asking, in the welfare society, where do these purported human rights end? The Danish concept of “millimeter democracy” refers to a contest in which if one person gets favorable treatment, another person feels entitled to the equivalent, and the next in turn, ad infinitum, or at least until you have accumulated the world’s largest public sector. If it confers great happiness, why does it also produce so much resentment? What used to be known as the right to the pursuit of happiness often comes to be viewed as a right to every comfort and convenience, if not happiness itself. Why not just break out the soma?

Tax cuts and inequality

Last week the Løkke Rasmussen administration presented a proposal for tax reforms called Job Reform Phase II.  The measures are intended to provide tax relief to various income groups and give greater incentives to work. They inevitably provoked controversy about how much was necessary and who benefits most.

One of the basic issues under debate on tax reform has been whether to reduce or abolish the high marginal tax rate in order to prompt high earners to work more or to reduce the rate on the lowest income group in order to bring more people into the labor force. The Liberal Alliance party had made the former its cause and had been virtually holding the government hostage with the demand. Leading economists have also endorsed the position, saying it would be revenue-neutral. The Danish People’s Party, the largest party supporting the administration, on the other hand, has demanded tax relief for low-income workers. So who won?

Take-home pay

One of the key measures was an adjustment of the employment deduction. People in the lowest income bracket would get a new deduction of DKK 4,500 ($720). The rationale is that this would make it more appealing for a segment of the population to work instead of receive transfer payments. The government estimates that the measure would reduce this segment from 50,000 to 21,000 people.

At the same time, the ceiling on the employment deduction would be removed, and this would benefit people in the highest tax bracket (with a marginal rate of 56%). There are several other measures, most of which also seem to benefit high earners, such as an acceleration of the increase in the threshold of the highest income bracket, a reduction on the tax on car purchases (to 100%) and a more favorable treatment of pension contributions.

Malleable statistics

In a simplified scheme, the administration estimates the tax savings for four income groups. It emphasizes that the lowest segment would receive the largest percentage reduction, 7.1%. The middle segments would receive about 3.8%, and the highest segment 5.7%. The absolute amounts, of course, paint a different picture. The lowest group gains about $800 and the highest (represented by an income of about $165K) gains $4,300. So the question is whether the administration is trying to sneak a tax break for the rich into the package without actually changing the marginal tax rate. And the real question is whether doing so is good or bad.

Other organizations calculate the effects differently, of course. The Economic Council of the Labour Movement estimates that the top ten percent would receive an additional $1,900 in disposable income and the lowest ten percent would receive $48, not even taking into account supplementary factors such as the tax on cars. Such estimates are always debatable. It’s difficult to make comparisons partly because of a panoply of other taxes and duties, such as 25% VAT.

Gini out of the bottle

The criticism from the left is that the measures would increase inequality. According to Cepos, the leading conservative think-tank, the reforms would increase inequality more than any other since 2001. They would raise the Gini coefficient by 0.46, from a level of about 28.8. This has elicited many protests and denunciations not only from opposition politicians but also from cultural figures. The actor Flemming Jensen, for example, launched a broadside on Facebook accusing the administration of betraying Denmark’s heritage of solidarity and equality and promoting a neoliberal “law of the jungle” that is creating a caste system while the number of homeless increases, hospitals are forced to reduce costs and so on. In a subsequent interview, he concluded that no one in Denmark needs an income of more than $160K: “Why the hell would we?” Imagine how that would play in a country with heroes like Zuckerburg and Bezos.

The administration acknowledges the rise in equality and calls it insignificant. It argues that putting more people to work and raising all disposable incomes inevitably increases inequality but the level in Denmark would remain one of the lowest in the world (the Gini coefficient for the US, in comparison, is one of the highest, at around 46-48). Finance Minister Kristian Jensen said that he has been to town hall meetings around the country and no one has ever asked about the Gini coefficient; they ask rather how the government will enable businesses to hire more people. But they were probably his party’s own constituents. The Danish People’s Party is against the abolition of the deduction ceiling.

The secret to happiness?

This debate goes to one of the central issues of the research on comparative happiness internationally. The happiest countries generally have very low inequality, but is equality the direct cause of happiness, the most important single factor, or a derivative effect of other factors? If it is a causal factor, is there a limit to its beneficial effects? It is possible that, for historical, political and demographic reasons, the socialist tendencies in Western Europe that have brought relative equality and happiness in the prosperity since World War Two are no longer able to sustain them in the current low-growth global economy.

But that’s a theoretical question. The political reality is that the populations of social democracies are split. The so-called “welfare coalition” of welfare recipients and civil servants generally favors higher taxation and a larger public sector. Those in the private sector would rather keep more of their gross earnings. There is a constant tug-of-war and a tinkering with the tax tables whenever the governing majority shifts between a center-left and center-right coalition. Although Denmark’s economy is somewhat stagnant, it is fundamentally sound. The country has the luxury of being able to take or leave the proposed reforms, which may have more symbolic value than practical consequences. Perhaps sooner than we think, robotics and AI will shift the debate on the labor market and inequality to how to implement universal basic income.

Dismantling the nanny state, gingerly

Most of the parties in the Danish Parliament have reached an agreement (DK) to reform the rules on the amount of time that people on unemployment benefits and early retirement can spend on voluntary activities without losing any benefits. Currently, they can work up to four hours without penalty, and any additional time results in a reduction of their benefits. According to the new rules, the unemployed can work up to 10 hours and people on early retirement 15 hours. For recipients of so-called flex benefits and those in a flexible job program, the current limit, also four hours, will be abolished completely. All the parties support the change except to two furthest to the left, the Socialist People’s Party and the Red-Green Alliance.

Examples of volunteer work most often mentioned are fundraising for philanthropical organizations and serving as assistant soccer coach. There have been cases of clubs needing to close or reduce their activities because they didn’t have enough staffing. Sports teams in Denmark are generally run by private clubs; they aren’t associated with schools and universities. Denmark has an extensive system of non-profit associations for all kinds of activity. That’s why rules in this area have a significant effect.

Win-win or zero sum?

The proponents of the reform argue that such activities enable volunteer organizations to thrive, they are satisfying and healthy for the volunteers, they give the volunteers experience and contacts that can help them find a job, and so on. Why is there a limit at all, one might ask? Isn’t volunteering always a good thing for both the participant and the recipients of the work?

The argument against it (DK) is that it reduces the need for paid work and keeps more people unemployed. The unemployed are in effect taking jobs away from themselves. They also have less time to seek paid work. A two-year study showed that the more time the unemployed spend on volunteer work, the longer they remain unemployed. Every spokesperson for the parties in favor of the change also adduces the need for such limits and maintains that the new ones provide a better balance.

Rules and subrules

The rules also distinguish between voluntary social activities, which are not subject to these limits, and voluntary unpaid work, which in principle could be performed by paid employees. They also distinguish between two subcategories of voluntary unpaid work: operations and maintenance on the one hand, and anything else on the other. According to the reform, it will now become possible for people to perform minor operational and maintenance tasks with a reduction in benefits in small organizations that do not ordinarily pay people to do such work.

These are the nuts and bolts of the nanny state. The rules on unemployment and illness benefits reportedly fill 26,000 pages (DK). I don’t know the extent of similar rules on volunteer work in other countries, and I don’t understand the economics behind the criticism of the reform. It seems unlikely that, if people are prevented from volunteering, an organization will always be able to hire a paid employee to fill the job.

Surveillance and criminality

The other question that comes to mind is, who’s counting? How do the municipalities, which administer unemployment benefits, know whether Assistant Coach Lars spent four hours or five hours with his six-year-old and his soccer teammates last week? Does the picnic lunch after game count as well? Driving the kids across town to a game?

The unemployed need to report to the municipality about their job-seeking activities, but are they questioned about everything else they do? Are the positions of volunteers published in association documents? Are fellow citizens encouraged to rat on volunteers as though they were working in the shadow economy to evade taxes? People on early retirement must report earned income, which above a certain amount can also reduce benefits. But I doubt that they need to show up at public agency regularly to report on their leisure activities.

Whose money is it?

Another factor to remember is that both unemployment benefits and early retirement benefits are based on individual contributions to programs resembling insurance policies. Both of them receive public subsidies, but any reduction in benefits for exceeding these limits represents a proportional loss of one’s own contributions. One’s own taxes also go toward the subsidies.

The reform is a positive step toward a more realistic treatment of social behavior. There is much less charitable giving in Denmark than in the US because the state takes better care of people in need and taxpayers feel they “gave at the office.” Because of the large number of clubs and associations, volunteering to support and administer them is probably the main way that individuals express their altruistic impulses. And the unemployed have more time to do it and probably derive greater benefits from it. If we return the basic question about what makes people in social democracies happier than those in countries with freer market capitalism, it isn’t because their bureaucracies have limited or criminalized such activity.