Lansering av "Just Jobs” - internasjonalt nettverk av tenketanker

Check against delivery

When I met John Podesta in Oslo almost two years ago, we experienced a meeting of minds on several issues - not least on this one: How do we promote and protect the value of jobs in our times of globalisation? As financial turbulence rages, how do we join forces to promote fair employment and decent work – and how do we appreciate what a job really means for the individual, the family, the local community and the state? 

It gives me real pleasure that we stand here together today - not equipped with complete answers to those critical questions, but commonly engaged in a reflection that can inspire both policy and action. 

Today we launch the international “Just Jobs” network of think tanks. I believe this initiative will help us to see how the benefits of globalisation - understood here first and foremost as economic integration and increased trade globally - can be distributed more fairly among women and men all over the world.  

To me, the term “decent work” conveys the essence of our initiative: because paid work with its appropriate entitlements amounts to decency; and because the consequences of long-term unemployment, namely the loss of income, self esteem and social security amount to a breach of decency. And the people factor must be right at the centre if globalisation is to succeed. 

The short version of my point is this: Contrary to the thesis held by certain economists and certain political families, investment in decent work, fair employment, social protection, social dialogue institutions and gender equality are not obstacles to competitiveness and progress. If carefully planned and executed, such policies enhance competitiveness and progress, primarily because they maximise the potential of the individual and the community. 

There are two main arguments – one is rights-based and the other is economic – both underpinning the logic of decent work. 

First, the rights-based argument for promoting fair employment - or what CAP calls “Just Jobs”. Yes, fair employment is about human rights and human dignity. ILO’s core labour standards, which cover child labour, forced labour, non-discrimination and the right to organise, are universal human rights that people all over the world are entitled to. These conventions were not elaborated in some distant political laboratory – they are based on hard won experience. 

People must be at the centre. The benefits of globalisation are not products of liberalisation itself – the benefits of globalisation come as a result of trade, technological advances and conscious, proactive government policies. To manage this process we need strong institutions - global, regional and national - that regulate trade and investments and protect human rights in the labour market. In other words, institutions that promote trade, fair employment and social protection. 

We hear two kinds of counter argument. On the one hand, the fear of social dumping, that jobs in Norway and the US will be lost because there is no way we can match the low costs of trade from countries that do not respect any standard of decent work. These voices call for protection against such trade. 

On the other hand, there are those in emerging economies who protest the whole notion of decent work as a protectionist measure in disguise. 

We need to counter both concerns – and we can do so by referring to a key formulation in the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization from 2008. The declaration states that: “The violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be invoked or otherwise used as a legitimate comparative advantage and that labour standards should not be used for protections trade purposes.” Well put! 

Second, let me move to the economic argument for promoting fair employment or Just Jobs. 

I belong to a political family that adheres to these principles as a matter of political conviction. This is a powerful inspiration for promoting our position. But in addition there is this: Investing in fair employment and social protection is good economics. The paper on social protection presented here today points out that “the view that there is an inevitable trade-off between the levels of social protection and economic growth is most likely wrong, as the world’s most productive economies tend to have strong social protection systems”. 

I think that the experience from Norway and the other Nordic countries supports this assertion. 

Investment in social protection systems will differ from country to country. Norway, emerging as one of Europe’s poorest states at the beginning of the 20th century, did not make one giant leap to where we are today. Our model developed decade by decade into what most of the world would call a generous welfare system. Most importantly, it developed gradually, step by step in a way that is so characteristic for the introduction of political and social reforms in my country. Today most welfare benefits now apply universally to everyone, as do education and health services. Financing is provided over the government budget – funded through taxation. 

Should welfare benefits be universal? I would say: Not all – and not as a principle. The characteristic of the Norwegian welfare model is that it is utterly pragmatic in addition to seeking to achieve equity and contribute to equality. 

However, there are several arguments for universal benefits. I will mention three:

First, universal benefits are important to secure tax financing. If the government were to assist only the poor, there would be a risk that the majority would resist the tax burden laid on them. A certain level of universalism turns us all into stakeholders. 

Second, benefits that depend on a person’s income may imply very high effective tax rates at the low income levels and create poverty traps. 

And third, I would hold the egalitarian view that everyone should have access to basic education, health services and a livelihood. I believe that such a social contract contributes to social cohesion, which again is important for preserving a sense of unity in a rapidly changing world. 

To make but one illustration: We invest comprehensively in welfare benefits that promote gender equality, such as paid maternity leave, child care institutions and paid leave to take care of sick children – which in most cases benefit women. This is one reason why the participation of women in the labour force in Norway and the other Nordic countries is among the highest in the world. 

On the question as to how we can afford it, we should bear in mind the alternative: How can we afford not investing in women? And again, we did not move to where we are today in one step. This came about gradually based on what we could afford. 

Of course we need to recall that the challenges facing women in developing countries today are different from the challenges facing women in the Nordic countries. Nearly two thirds of all employed women in developing countries work as contributing family workers or as workers on their own account. They typically have employment that is extremely vulnerable, with lack of job security and benefits. 

In other words, many women do not have decent jobs. That is why the course should be set towards investing in different aspects of women’s lives, including in women’s health and that of their children. Thus, reproductive health issues are part and parcel of a strategy aimed at promoting women’s participation in the labour force – which again must be at the heart of the decent work agenda. 

Two highly respected Norwegian economic researchers, Erling Barth and Kalle Moene, have demonstrated why strong institutions for social dialogue - such as workers’ and employers’ organisations and generous welfare systems - are mutually beneficial. 

In an article from 2008 they investigated whether it is “[...] possible to sustain a high degree of equality, a generous welfare state and an inclusive working life in one country in a globalised world?” Their answer was yes. They went on to argue that “coordination in wage bargaining and strong welfare states may be viewed as complementary free-trade institutions”. 

Here is the rationale: Coordination in wage bargaining leads to what economists call wage compression in society as a whole. In other words, you will get a society with a higher degree of wage equality between different businesses and industries, which again helps to ensure a level of wages that is beneficial for the export industry and thus sustainable in an open world economy. 

In addition, a generous welfare system may enhance a society’s ability to restructure, given that the loss of income will not be too severely felt by those who have to leave their jobs and search for new ones. One might therefore expect globalisation to be more popular in countries that have a generous system for social protection. 

And perhaps most importantly, it is argued that good systems for wage bargaining – implying strong worker and employer organisations and a generous welfare system – not only distribute the benefits of globalisation equitably, but also contribute to even higher growth. 

This is a key point, because it contradicts those who claim that a generous welfare system only benefits the poor, and makes the rich less interested in the preservation of the welfare state. In short – if structured in the right way, the welfare state is a sound economic investment for both the well-off and the less well-off. 

I find this research very interesting. It provides a powerful argument for why it is fully possible to invest in social protection and social dialogue – two of the strategic objectives in the Decent Work Agenda – and at the same time take advantage of trade liberalisation and globalisation. Again, remember that the Nordic countries developed these policies in times when they were much less well off than today. Our approach to social protection policies and social dialogue is much older than our current high scores on the league tables of income and welfare. 

Let me end on a tone of caution. Of course, each country must find its own way of implementing the Decent Work Agenda – and each country has its own challenges. There are limits to what a model can provide. But we can learn more from comparative research and exchange of experiences between policy shapers and policy makers. The think tank network that starts its work today will come up with a broad range of proposals that are applicable to countries in different parts of the world. This we truly welcome. 

Many developing countries will rightly argue that they lack the fiscal space to make the necessary investments. But as I said earlier, the course must be set, step must follow step – cautiously at the beginning – while remembering that social protection and social dialogue are not only tools for wealth redistribution, they are also tools for wealth creation. Decent work, if applied in the right way – and there is ample evidence to demonstrate how - is sound development policy. That is why we also need the multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF to make these investments possible. 

At the global level, we see growing recognition that job creation and decent work must be at the heart of the economic recovery after the financial crisis. I mentioned that Norway brought the ILO and the WTO together in Oslo two years ago. Last September we went further when Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg hosted a joint ILO/IMF conference in Oslo called “The Challenges of Growth, Employment and Social Cohesion” with the objective of improving the integration of employment and social policies into international and national macroeconomic policy strategies. 

Observers said this was a first. Judging from the feedback I am confident it will not be the last. 

Before the G20 summit in Seoul last month, the OECD, ILO, World Bank and WTO prepared a joint paper called “Seizing the Benefits of Trade for Employment and Growth”. The G20 Leaders’ Declaration from Seoul emphasised the need “to put jobs at the heart of the recovery, to provide social protection, decent work and also to ensure accelerated growth in low income countries”. 

These examples show us that fair employment and people’s right to a decent job are highly relevant and should be important factors in economic recovery and development, trade liberalisation and globalisation. 

Now it is up to sovereign states to deliver – coherently - at the national level, in the global arena and in the multilateral institutions. And we who meet here today will do our part as advocates and contributors to research. 

*****

See the web site Just Jobs