The Fènix Report, in which I participated, has merited the attention of the media and many analysts, but no interest, for the moment, from those responsible for the country's economic policy. It must be said that, among those who have shown interest, the agreement on the diagnosis is very great. The prognosis, however, no one fully claims as their own. I think this is due, in part, to some misinterpretations, more or less intentional.
As we authors have reiterated, the Report is not an anti-tourism critique (better to have tourism than not to have it!), nor against immigration (we always talk about subsidized sectors, never about people), nor against low labor productivity (it is recognized that it also depends on capital and infrastructure). Nor is it said that the well-being of Catalans has decreased in absolute terms (comparisons are always relative: countries in our environment, Spanish average, compared to past growth...), and the analysis is done by branches of activity (identifying the heterogeneity of tourism as an employment sector). It is not questioned that there are sectors supported by public policies (rather, the logic behind certain fiscal and labor subsidies is questioned). It is not stated at any time that immigration seeking a future in our country should be filtered at the source (the aim is that the reception conditions are known to preserve collective well-being, beyond individual wages and profits). Nor does it intend to present, in seventy pages, a strategic action guide for a global future bet for the Catalan economy (not another industrial plan or a homemade PRODI plan, nor a proposal of "possibles" if Catalonia closes its fiscal deficit with the State).
The Fènix Report Many of these reading errors against the
Many of these reading errors against theReport I find in the note made by the Intercomarcal Federation of Hospitality, Restoration and Tourism. The positive tone in the diagnosis is favorably surprising. This speaks well of this federation, which is not moved by crude pressure group prejudices. But it questions the prognosis and makes us say things we do not say. We do not confuse cause and effect. The cause is, indeed, the growth model followed; not immigration (which is the effect, and about which we are sufficiently concerned to try to guarantee the well-being of all). We are not talking about subsidized workers' wages; but about average wages by branches of activity. It is not a matter of post-market redistributive justice, but of pre-market working and remuneration conditions. The multiplier effect is not ignored; quite the contrary: the idea is incorporated that all private or social spending must consider how it is financed and how this consideration reduces well-being. And let us remember that spending cannot be considered in isolation as if income from social spending fell from the sky. We have already said that we know that tourism is not a homogeneous sector. It is enough to look at the attached graph of recognizable salary differences.
In the Federation's reply, it is stated that, for us, the public sector does not exist. And of course we consider it: we question how it is financed and how it applies sectoral subsidies (is the Federation happy, otherwise, that HUT rent does not pay VAT, as if tourist rental were normal residential rental?). Finally, the criticism sees an ideological bias. That would have merit in such a large and diverse team! But no. All that is said is that arguments can be found to subsidize care for the population with insufficient wages, if they are to be maintained, or for agriculture, for example, for preserving landscape richness. And in others, we find no justification. Or would the Federation want the land all parcelled up, food production abandoned in favor of importing food from Morocco or anywhere else?
It is clear that we must be grateful that theFènix Report is discussed, that misunderstandings can be clarified, and that together we seek refinement to improve economic policies. The worst that could happen to theReport is that, after the initial flare-up, it would be shelved, while the state of affairs that justifies it is maintained. We work on the care and cure, as the English say. But let's not ignore that the patient may be getting sicker.
