山形氏にのせられて定期購読を始めたわけであるが、
http://cruel.org/economist/
彼のような全訳は無理だけど、たまに記事の紹介でもしようかと思う。たいていの記事はネットで読めるし（ＴＴ）。
とりあえず今日はこれ。
"In the shadow of prosperity"
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8548661
結論は
The tasks of freeing up labour markets (in Europe), reforming health care (in America) and improving education (everywhere) are far more important than any amount of experimentation with wage insurance or retraining schemes. If politicians really want to respond to the worries caused by globalisation, those are still the best places to start.
なのだけれども、記事の中盤でいわゆる「積極的労働市場政策」のモデルとしてデンマークを取り上げていて、日本を含む先進諸国の「積極的労働市場政策」への公的支出の対ＧＤＰ比のグラフを掲載している。んでもって、デンマークはともかく他の国じゃむりっぽくね？ということで"alternative approach"として”wage insurance"を紹介している。以下はその部分のコピペ。
As a result, it may be better to focus on policies which improve job prospects for all workers. In Europe, Denmark has led the way. The Danish system of “flexicurity” appears to offer the best of both worlds: dynamic labour markets and low unemployment coupled with generous support for those who lose their jobs.
Denmark has a long history of weak job protection. Employers hire and dismiss people at will. Around a quarter of the workforce is unemployed at some point in any year. But the jobless enjoy generous welfare benefits while they look for work, around 80% of their previous wage on average. To ensure this does not deter people from finding new jobs, the Danes oblige the unemployed to be trained and to look diligently for work.
The European Union is urging its members to follow the “flexicurity” model. Democratic wonks in America enthuse about it too. But Denmark's approach has evolved over decades and cannot easily be copied. Besides, it is extremely expensive. Although Denmark has an unemployment rate of under 5%, it spends more than 5% of GDP on the unemployed, including almost 2% of GDP on its “active” training and job-search programmes. It pays for it with one of the highest tax rates on labour income in the world―one many other European countries, with much higher unemployment rates, could not afford.
For America, which currently spends a mere 0.16% of GDP on such “active” labour-market policies, the idea of Danish-style “flexicurity” is more a slogan than a serious suggestion. Academics agree that employers are far better at training workers than the state. Few politicians in either party support a dramatic expansion of government training programmes.
An alternative approach is to give displaced workers a subsidy if they are forced into a lower-paying job. Such “wage insurance” already exists in a modest form on both sides of the Atlantic. Since 2003 Germany has a scheme where the government makes up 50% of the wages lost by people over 50 who are forced into a lower-paying job. France has a similar scheme with no age qualifications, but limits the subsidy to two years. Since 2002 America's TAA has offered wage insurance to any trade-displaced worker over 50: the government pays half the difference between the old and new wage for two years, up to a maximum of $10,000.
ついでに、「積極的労働市場政策」という訳語が正しいのかググって確かめたところ、以下のブログにヒット。
「効果を失った積極的労働市場政策」
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yoshi_swe/e/5e5b6928ce3bd69a246f11fa406b1ad6
「労働市場モデルの踏襲」
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yoshi_swe/e/85c3fb1090f59fa16c5a2b2e6ad8ae93
