What does NRC | think? Equality The Netherlands is not synonymous with justice

In the run-up to the elections for the House of Representatives on November 22, not only social security is a major theme. The election campaign shows that inequality in the Netherlands is also considered an urgent problem. Yet inequality in income and wealth is not too bad, especially in an international perspective. In fact, the Netherlands is already proportionately one of the countries with the greatest equality in the world.

This applies to incomes: the so-called Gini coefficient, which runs from total equality (0) to total inequality (1), was 0.285 last year, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. That is very low. If the calculation method of the OECD, the club of industrialized countries, which differs slightly from that of CBS, is used, Dutch income inequality appears to be the fifth lowest in the European Union – and one of the lowest in the world.

At first glance, this is different with wealth inequality, and that is probably always the reason for political alarm. The Gini coefficient for wealth inequality, CBS reported last week, was 0.711. That seems very high, but wealth distributions are simply more extreme than income distributions. Because here too, the Netherlands is in the lower regions of the international rankings. And that is without the pension assets that a large part of the population is building up – quite unique in the world in its nature and size. Because it cannot be freely disposed of and cannot be transferred, pension assets are not included in the wealth inequality. If that does happen, another 0.1 will probably be removed from the Gini coefficient and the Netherlands will be almost at the bottom of the international rankings.

Why is inequality still perceived as a major problem? Apart from the fact that everything is magnified during campaign times, there seems to be a good reason for this, which is related to that other major theme: insecurity.

Income equality in the Netherlands is partly achieved by the strong growth of the income supplement system since the turn of the century. An allowance can be perceived as less certain than the income – wages or benefits – itself. The allowance can expire, increase or decrease at any time or – wrongly – be taken away. The childcare affair has had a deep impact in that respect. The call for simplification of the system is therefore understandable: the very system that is designed to curb income inequality also contributes to perceived insecurity.

There are also comments to be made about the relatively low wealth inequality. An important part of the wealth of Dutch families comes from the increased value of their own home. In the meantime, a social division threatens between households – and descendants in those households – with an owner-occupied or rented home. Assets can be passed on to subsequent generations. So do the better social opportunities that come with it.

The question thus becomes whether the relative equality in income and wealth conceals the fact that entire groups in society are trapped in the low income and wealth groups into which they were born or ended up. That is not part of meritocracy, nor the type of welfare state that the Netherlands would like to be.

To share





Email the editor