The islands of New Zealand are often viewed by Americans as a sort of paradise, isolated both geographically and spiritually from the real world issues that plague the United States.
It is this very blithe and somewhat condescending attitude that prevents many Americans from realizing that not only is New Zealand grappling with tangible issues, but many of those issues are closely related to our own and to those faced by the rest of the neoliberal western world. With this appreciation in mind, New Zealand’s recent election ought to be viewed with careful consideration so as to see how another nation addressed some of the issues that we Americans face as well.
New Zealand, like the United States, is now dealing with the socially divisive effects of neoliberalism and rampant capitalism. It may come as a surprise, but since 1980, New Zealand has seen one of the highest increases in income inequality in the world. Since 1984, the average income of the richest one percent of New Zealanders doubled from $200,000 to $400,000 when adjusted for inflation.
Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 10 percent of New Zealanders has hardly increased at all in the past two decades. Another framework to help picture wealth inequality in New Zealand is the amount of wealth controlled by the different sectors of society. As of 2014, the top one percent controlled one-fifth of the nation’s net-worth, while the bottom 10 percent controlled just one-twentieth.
All of these figures ought to be familiar to Americans, who have the infamous honor of being denizens of a nation with some of the worst income inequality in the world. When Americans were given the choice between the embodiment of neoliberal status quo and a grotesque manifestation of the very institution that perpetuates inequality, they chose the latter.
New Zealand, however, took a different route. After nine years of center-right National Party rule, the Kiwis elected the charismatic and vibrant 37-year-old head of the center-left Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern as prime minister. Ardern, who only rose to leadership of the Labour Party two months prior to the election, will become the newest in a wave of young leaders recently elected (see Trudeau, Macron, Kurz) — and more interestingly — the youngest woman ever to be elected as prime minister of New Zealand.
So how does Ardern propose to deal with the issues of income inequality in her country? In short, she intends to fulfill the progressive agenda, with ideas closely compatible to those of American progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Ardern made headlines this week for condemning the current prime minister, Bill English, for his self-adulation regarding the economy. English touted the three percent GDP growth and the surpluses that his government was able to produce as evidence of the success of the National Party. Ardern rejected such conclusions, retorting “How can you claim you’ve been successful when you have growth roughly three per cent, but you’ve got the worst homelessness in the developed world?” Ardern expanded her criticism from targeting English’s National Party to capitalism as a whole, arguing that “If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?”
Instead of continuing English’s free market government that lacked adequate welfare, Ardern hopes to increase minimum wage, codify child poverty reduction laws and build thousands of affordable homes. Conservatives will, as they always do, condemn such plans as being too costly and not public sector responsibilities. They will also quibble that the cherished surplus of English’s premiership will be erased by the fiscal incompetence of the Labour Party. In response, the left criticize remind us that the surplus was created at the expense of reduced social services. Furthermore, they protest the three percent GDP growth for being a result of the National Party favoring the dairy energy sector over New Zealand’s famously beautiful nature.
The tribulations of Ardern and the Labour Party over the next few years will be of significant interest to the rest of the world. In the face of increasing social divisions, success could give legitimacy to the progressive agenda and serve as a viable alternative to increasing conservatism. At home, this might have significant consequences, as legitimacy of progressivism may be pivotal in deciding whether a progressive like Sanders or Warren has a serious chance at being nominated for president.
On a less hypothetical and more immediate note, it ought not be ignored that Ardern’s victory serves as a victory for women as well. In a world darkened by despicable acts of sexual harassment and misogyny, the success of a strong and independent-minded woman like Ardern ought to provide some semblance of hope and optimism.
Regardless of political belief, it is undeniable that change is coming to New Zealand. Whether this will prove to be beneficial to the economy is yet to be seen, but the inherent optimism and excitement in Ardern’s campaign sharply contrasts the negativity and pessimism so prevalent in our own election. The developments in New Zealand serve as basis by which we can understand how to combat income inequality and the crises of the modern age. Will it be progressivism or conservatism which holds the key to viability in the future? Only time will tell, but in the meantime, in the words of Ardern’s campaign slogan, “Let’s do this.”
