Peter Wennink sought to strengthen his case with a forcefully argued diagnosis of the problem. Unfortunately, it proved a distraction.
From “a lack of scientific rigor” to “cocktail-party chatter,” the report presented last month by Peter Wennink has been sharply criticized. That’s fine: debate and disagreement tend to sharpen the argument. Still, it’s hard to shake the feeling that much of the criticism is aimed at elements that should never have been on Wennink’s plate to begin with. Or that he should not have put them there himself.
Minister Karremans asked Wennink to “prepare an independent advisory report on significantly strengthening the Dutch investment climate and future earning capacity,” according to a letter to Parliament. The cabinet, the letter continues, requested that Wennink “translate the main recommendations of the Draghi report into proposals for fundamentally strengthening the Dutch economy, identify structural systemic bottlenecks, outline opportunities for future earning capacity and recommend concrete next steps.”
The requested recommendations form the core of the report, and they find broad support, judging by the reactions. Where the report makes itself vulnerable is in the preceding emphatic problem analysis – an analysis that, at least according to the parliamentary letter, was never requested.
Nor was it necessary. That work had already been done by Mario Draghi. Wennink warns that preserving prosperity and social provisions will require more economic growth than currently expected, and that this growth must largely come from higher labor productivity. That argument maps directly onto Draghi’s work, which, incidentally, was couched in language every bit as alarmist as Wennink’s.
I don’t know whether Karremans’s assignment was broader than public documents suggest. Even if it wasn’t, it’s easy to understand why Wennink felt the need to provide additional justification and convey a sense of urgency. But in doing so, the former ASML chief executive – despite his financial background – ventured onto slippery ground. A few months is, in any case, too short a time to produce a fully wrought analysis of this scope.
The result was that Wennink had to spend much of his airtime parrying criticism. Even though his message wasn’t completely drowned out, that’s a pity, because people can’t hear it enough.
