Mittwoch, Mai 03, 2006
Wieso wir Schweizer so reich sind
Erst vor kurzem habe ich bezüglich dieser Frage mit meinem Bruder gestritten.
Chrampfer und Büetzer ...
Er, Polymechaniker von Beruf, stellte die Arbeitsamkeit der Bevölkerung in den Vordergrund (als Kritik an den "Studierten" im Sinne vom "Überlegt lieber einmal, wem ihr dies alles hier zu verdanken habt!". Ein Grundton, der übrigens auch in einem Kommentar von Torquie mitschwingt.)
... oder gewiefte Gschäftlimacher?
Ich hielt (eher spontan, schliesslich "fägen" solche Gespräche ja nur, wenn man ein Gegenargument präsentieren kann) dagegen, dass man zwar die Leistung der "Büetzer und Chrampfer" nicht unter den Scheffel stellen sollte. Aber, gab ich zu bedenken, könnte es nicht eher sein, dass wir dank unserer Neutralität zwei Weltkriege ohne nennenswerte Schäden überstanden hatten? Keine verbombten Städte, kein Verlust von im besten Alter stehenden Soldaten, dafür aber mächtig viele Waffenexporte (wo die Büetzer als dafür benötigte Industriearbeiter schon wieder mit im Spiel wären) sowie natürlich - last, but not least - der Bankenplatz!
Also eher im Stil von "Wenn zwei sich streiten ..." - denn eines muss man uns (resp. unseren Vorfahren) lassen: Wenn Blut- resp. Geldhunde einmal Witterung aufgenommen hatten, liessen sie nicht mehr von der Fährte ab, bis das Kässeli voll war.
Die (verspätete) Antwort
Stammtischgeplänkel hin oder her - heute hatte ich die Ehre, die persönliche Seite einen Arbeitskollegen auf Vordermann zu bringen. Und siehe da, genau diese Frage beantwortet er (vorläufig) in einem Working-Paper:
When did the Swiss Get so Rich? Comparing Living standards in Switzerland and Europe
Zwar bin ich erst auf Seite 2 angelangt, aber das bisher gelesene macht Lust auf mehr.
Der springende Punkt
Schon - oder gerade für die Zeit um die Jahrhundertwende - ist aber folgende von grosser Bedeutung:
One could therefore imagine, for example, that Switzerland already enjoyed a high level of GDP per capita before World War I, while the majority of its citizens did not share the benefits of this economic success and were still comparably worse off than their neighbours when looking at real wages.
Quelle: Seite 4f., unten.
Auch heute ist die Sachlage identisch - die Schweiz ist das reichste Land der Welt, aber wir zählen dennoch 200'000 "Working Poors". 24 Millionen SFr. von Ospel und ein Arbeitsloser zusammengerechnet ergeben halt immer noch das schöne Jahressalär von 12 Millionen pro Kopf ... Ich rette mich jetzt aber lieber von den bereits rot anlaufenden B- und VWLern anhand des stümperischen Vergleichs *grins*
Abonnieren
Kommentare
neuen Kommentar verfassen
Na gut, dann solltest du ja auch rot anlaufen, oder was ist der CEO eines Einmann-Unternehmens anders als ein Betriebswirt?;-)
[...]
Critics say there is not just one Swiss economy but at least two: the efficient export sector, dominated by large, internationally competitive companies, and the inefficient domestic sector that survives only because it is highly protected. Thomas Held, who runs Avenir Suisse, a think-tank financed by Swiss multinationals, lists no fewer than four different Swiss economies: the global companies based in Switzerland that create much of the country's wealth; the competitive and innovative small and medium-sized outfits that live on exports; the state-owned or semi-privatised sector, such as the post office, the telecommunications operator (Swisscom) and the electricity industry; and the plethora of small domestic enterprises with lowish productivity in retailing, construction, tourism, farming and so on.
[...]
The first, big and international, sector of the economy is impressive by any standards. For a country of its size, Switzerland has an unusual number of large multinational companies. The list includes big banks such as UBS and Credit Suisse; big insurance companies such as Zurich and Swiss Re; Nestlé, a huge multinational food company that grew from small beginnings in Vevey on Lake Geneva more than 130 years ago; Novartis and Roche, two world-class pharmaceutical companies; and Swatch, the company that resuscitated the Swiss watch industry after a nearly terminal assault by cheap quartz watches from East Asia in the 1980s. A few big companies have been accused of oligopolistic practices, and some have had their troubles, but most are now doing well.
They are there because Switzerland has plenty to offer such firms: political and economic stability; an attractive tax and regulatory regime; well-developed capital markets; good communications; an educated and flexible workforce; and an excellent quality of life. They make a huge contribution to the economy but a much smaller one to domestic employment, accounting for well under 10% of Swiss jobs, because much of their business is abroad.
The second category covers small, nimble companies in sectors such as engineering, biotechnology, medical instruments and watchmaking that spend a lot on R&D and export most of their output. Again, their share of domestic employment is relatively small, but their economic contribution is significant.
The third group, state-owned or semi-privatised enterprises, which account for about a quarter of all jobs, could probably be reinvigorated by further privatisation, but is unlikely to display great dynamism.
The bulk of Swiss employment, around 60%, is in the fourth economy: small and medium-sized builders, craftsmen, retailers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, consultants and so on. They are safe not only from international competition, but often from rivals nearer home too. The Swiss federal government has been trying for decades to create a truly integrated domestic market, with mixed results. [...]
To a foreigner, almost everything in Switzerland is hair-raisingly expensive. According to the central bank, this is not because the Swiss franc is overvalued, but because the domestic cost base is high. The high wages paid by the internationally competitive sector of the economy filter down to other, less efficient companies. Food costs a lot because Swiss farmers are not large enough to operate at optimum efficiency, and Switzerland's tariffs on imports of agricultural goods average around 50%. Tariffs on manufactured goods are low, but technical barriers can be pretty effective at keeping out imports. A basic washing machine, for example, costs two or three times as much in Switzerland as it does in France or Germany.
Measured by a standardised basket of goods and services, prices in Switzerland are nearly 40% higher than the OECD average, whereas in neighbouring France and Germany they are only 10% higher and in Italy 10% lower. In a small country with fairly open borders, that encourages a lot of Swiss families to nip across the border to buy their groceries more cheaply.
[...]
The least market-oriented sector of the Swiss economy is agriculture. Some of this is a hangover of the second world war, when Switzerland wanted to be as self-sufficient in food as possible. It still produces three-fifths of its own food. That may reassure its citizens about the reliability and quality of supplies, but it is not the most cost-effective way of feeding them.
Still, the farmers are not just there to produce food. They are also paid to look after the countryside. Where it is not picturesquely wild and mountainous, the Swiss countryside does indeed look manicured. However, the average Swiss farm is too small to be economic. The agriculture ministry reckons that the minimum herd for making a decent living is 60 cows, but the average Swiss farmer keeps only half that number. The life is hard, and when farmers get too old for it they often find that their children do not want to take over. Between 1985 and 2000 the number of people working in agriculture declined by 32%, to 200,000, and the number of farms dropped by 29%, to 70,000.
The Swiss government subsidises agriculture and forestry even more extravagantly than does the EU with its famously profligate agricultural policy. But some progress is being made. Milk quotas will be gradually phased out between 2006 and 2009, and farmers are now being paid directly for non-commercial activities such as caring for the environment, instead of indirectly through farm prices. But these reforms will do little to bring down consumer prices.
[...]
source: The Economist