It is independent of the quality of leaders of alliances or programs

How do we explain the weakening sustainable and almost universal for the Socialist left and social democratic Europe The European elections Sunday confirmed, but this phenomenon is not new: it began in the early 2000s. It is independent of the quality of leaders, of alliances or programs.

In my view, a part of the answer lies in the book by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser (Harvard University), "Fight inequalities and poverty the United States to Europe", 2006. Why are there many more social redistribution in Europe and the United States After having rejected number of assumptions, the authors retain two causes. The first is historic: the United States have conservative political institutions dating back to the end of the 18th century. The second cause is ethnic heterogeneity. In the United States, historically, poverty was especially Blacks and Hispanics. White refused to pay for a welfare State which they thought that it did not concern. They did not want to ensure socially against a risk (poverty) that they associated with the black only. "Experimental evidence shows that people feel sympathy with individuals of the same ethnic group in the American sense;" Thus a less generous welfare state is in part due to the fact that the White majority does not want to redistribute favourably to ethnic minorities.

Proof: since the Johnson presidency (1965), for every dollar allocated by the local State to a program of fight against poverty, the Federal Government gives another dollar. Could have to expect that the leaders of the poor States (including those of the South) heavily use this program to win votes. It was the opposite: the poor southern States were very little used this facility because the electoral majority did not want to pay for blacks. On the other hand, the rich States of North, with a strong ethnic homogeneity (Minnesota and Wisconsin), mainly inhabited by descendants of immigrants from Northern Europe, widely used program Johnson.

Finally, the Americans give to their community through donations to churches or "charities". Thus, each community is ready to redistribution within, but not to the outside. The appetite of solidarity (for all) is lower than that of the insurance (within a group). The two authors find that in Europe (especially Scandinavia) mass redistribution has been accepted because the companies were ethnically homogeneous 95: by paying high taxes, people ensure against risks of life to which they were exposed.

Back to Europe: liberal economists like myself believe that immigration is good for growth. Unfortunately, the popular and middle class voters are less convinced and tend to defy the redistribution towards immigrants. This is reflected in the ballot box: left reinforces its weight in cultural Liberals (Bobo), but middle and working classes are increasingly turning to the right centre, which offers limited and conditioned social spending, even to the extremist right, to the hostile to immigration speech. With the current crisis and the flow of immigration will continue, these tensions on redistribution will increase.

What make First of all, must be tirelessly remind the benefits of economic immigration. Then he must make the most efficient welfare State to preserve its legitimacy. But difficult issues will emerge: in the welfare State, that is what is solidarity on the one hand and social insurance on the other hand Should the State all financing What benefits are conditional or unconditional

As the European left, it will have to resolve a contradiction in his breast: is it possible to promise both a generous universalist welfare State and open to all immigration policy Its traditional voters tell him more and more non. And voters feel well that their welfare state is threatened by the current yawning public deficits; as such, a policy of left would return accelerated the balanced budget!

On the right, it has an electoral advantage in his criticism of the redistribution, but it must not forget that, without immigration, our workforce and our wealth slow strongly, while debt explodes and pensions are threatened.