The Phoenix Report —which I co-authored— has managed to generate debate. Not as much as we would like, but more than we expected. In this article I would like to respond to some of the criticisms it is receiving most recurrently.1. GDP per capita is not (so) important. Some authors have suggested that the fact that a productive sector grows by attracting a large number of immigrants by paying them little reduces the averages of productivity (of labor, per hour worked) and income, but that this does not necessarily imply any harm to the rest. Andreu Mas-Colell, for example, wrote in ARA: “I state that this does not necessarily mean impoverishment, neither for the natives nor obviously for the immigrants”. Xavier Sala i Martín has suggested the same, emphasizing that GDP per capita is an average, and that, therefore, it can fall without affecting the situation of many. This argument overlooks an effect that everyone can observe: the impact of population growth on access to housing and public services: “If I am poor but the immigrant is poorer, he takes my school lunch scholarship”. When we consider these impacts, I fear that the growth of less productive sectors does — necessarily — lead to very general impoverishment. (More technically, the critique also forgets the Balassa-Samuelson effect, according to which the wages of most sectors of the economy depend on the wages in the exporting sectors, but this is an argument for academic economists.)2. Defeatism. Francesc Reguant has highlighted the tone of theReport: “I would like to express my surprise at the extraordinarily negative tone of the report [...] This catastrophic view is clearly exaggerated and imprudent”.
Certainly, the Report maintains that the current trajectory of the Catalan economy is unsustainable. But it does not say in any way that everything is going badly. In fact, it dedicates a section to highlighting that, contrary to what is very often repeated to us, Catalan industry is experiencing growth that is as positive as Basque industry in quantitative terms and more positive in qualitative terms. Considering that the weight of industry triples that of tourism, is this catastrophism?3. Tourism. A recurring criticism refers to an alleged criminalization of the tourism sector. Often, the defense of the sector is expressed with some formulation of the question with which I title this article. For example, the Intercommunal Federation of Hospitality, Restoration and Tourism has published a comment on the Report which is generally very measured but includes the following sentence: “(The Report) does not answer the essential question: what realistic alternative model would replace the current weight of tourism? Replacing 12-15% of GDP requires decades and a concrete alternative.”This is a recurring question that only serves to justify the persistence of a very low-productivity sector based on its size, as if this were not an additional reason to correct it. It is important, therefore, to answer it clearly.To do so, let's forget for a moment that we are talking about tourism and assume that the Phoenix Report referred to climate change and the need to curb CO₂ emissions (among other greenhouse gases). Would it make sense for someone to question it with the question “What would we do without CO₂?”
Indeed, we wouldn't achieve much, because, to begin with, CO₂ is necessary for plants to carry out photosynthesis and, therefore, to support all higher life forms. But without CO₂ there would be no plants either, because the Earth would be a ball of ice with an average temperature of -18°. However, I can't imagine anyone asking this question, because everyone knows that the fight against climate change does not aim to eliminate atmospheric CO₂, but to reduce the rate of emissions we produce. And that is precisely why the Phoenix Report does not intend to eliminate the tourism sector nor, in general, low-wage productive sectors. What it advocates is to curb its growth and, as far as possible, reverse what it has had in recent years. Exactly what we propose regarding CO₂.Looking more closely, the Fènix Report does not manifest against tourism, but against low-productivity tourism. Is more productive tourism possible? The Report makes it clear that yes, and the way is the Barcelona model, since its tourism is much more productive than that of sun and beach. And why is it? Because its capacity is limited far below demand in high season. That is why the Fènix Report proposes to reduce the capacity of sun and beach tourism, not to leave the Catalan coast without its main economic activity, which would be a blunder; not as great as pretending to leave the Earth without CO₂, but a blunder nonetheless.
