I came across a new word this weekend: the compensation society. When I looked it up, it turned out that it had already been coined in March of this year by Pieter Hasekamp, director of the Central Planning Bureau. He used the term to describe a society in which the government constantly steps into the breach financially for groups of citizens or companies that are confronted with unexpected costs. According to Hasekamp, this is a bad thing for several reasons: i) the wrong incentives arise if the government structurally guarantees the solution of problems, ii) government support can lead to inequality and lobbyism and iii) from a political-economic point of view it is unwise to regular budgetary frameworks.
Last weekend was in It Financial Daily discussed the fear of a compensation society in an interview with the Minister of Finance. Sigrid Kaag was questioned about the energy ceiling that had been set. Thanks to this support package, energy costs for citizens and energy-intensive SMEs will be kept under control this winter. The costs amount to 7.5 billion euros, with it not yet clear where that money will come from. Minister Kaag will make an inventory to see how she can close this gap in the budget.
It was a strange interview because this last shortcoming was touched upon somewhat casually and the minister was mainly questioned critically about the message she keeps repeating: the energy ceiling is only a temporary solution. The interviewers wondered to what extent this message is credible, and whether the minister could afford a temporary package without an uprising breaking out. It has been suggested that this is not the case.
Last week, the editors reported Nu.nl that she had researched the door policy of retailers. A tour of more than six hundred stores across the country showed that 60 percent kept their doors wide open. Given the limited gas supply and the very expensive energy ceiling, you could call that idiotic. According to industry association INretail, retailers can save no less than 40 percent of their heating costs if they keep their doors closed. But yes, the momentum of Black Friday and the holidays requires an emphatically open door for every passing consumer. He may let his buying drive depend on the physical task of having to push open a door. Some doors are also very heavy. Fortunately, INretail has a solution in mind: the government requires retailers to close their doors. An earlier appeal to shopkeepers from INretail turned out to be too non-committal, while such a legal obligation already applies in France and Germany.
Now I wonder what this makes of us. What does it say about our nature if we expect the government to compensate for energy costs, under penalty of a revolt if that support is only temporary, while the same government must also set up a legal framework (including a control and fine system) so that we can fulfill the function using a door?
Has our notion of government perhaps degenerated into that of a Sinterklaas? My children still firmly believe in the miraculous appearance of free gifts from Spain, but they too will soon realize that those gifts were paid for from our own household budget.