• 
• 

From post-war reconstruction to rebuilding our economic and societal systems

Check against delivery

---

INTRODUCTION – From Sint-Michielsgestel to the Present

• No country has ever fully eradicated poverty without economic growth, and no country has ever halted ecological degradation through economic growth alone. How do we reconcile progress with sustainability, without leaving people behind? What dilemmas does this raise? And why is this particularly urgent today?
• By way of introduction: I am the Chair of the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER) – which this year celebrates its 75th anniversary.

Historical context

• Sint-Michielsgestel, 1943: Dutch politicians, CEO’s, scientists, artists and journalists (such as Drees and Philips) from across political and societal movements were imprisoned there during the war. Amid this backdrop, early reflections emerged on how to rebuild Dutch society after the conflict.
• The core idea: never again should society fall apart into interest groups without a shared purpose or perspective.
• This “spirit of Gestel” planted the seeds for what later became the Dutch consultative economy: the Social and Economic Council (SER, 1945) and the Labour Foundation (1945).
• Democracy, it was thought, must not only be political but also economically supported, with associations of employers and unions that are member-based with organizational models based on representative democracy.

National context of the period

• This led to the construction of a social market based economy, with balance between economic growth and social stability and good collective provision such as education, health care and social security. Shared responsibility for government, businesses and societal organisations.
• The post-war promise was that democracy would “make ordinary life better”.
• Economic reconstruction provided political stability.
• The Dutch “polder model” embodied economic democracy: sharing and balancing power, connecting interests, and jointly shaping the future with employers, employees and public administrators. These “centres of goodwill” enabled conflicts to be avoided and ensured that policies and agreements enjoyed broad legitimacy. Besides economic stability, the SER also focused on social cohesion and justice: social security, pensions, healthcare and working conditions – the balance between economic growth and social policy became a hallmark of Dutch post-war reconstruction.

Present day

• In 2025, we once again face major challenges. Polarisation and unequal opportunities are growing, and trust in political and economic institutions is under pressure. In a world changing faster than many can follow, mutual distance and misunderstanding are increasing. Major challenges related to ageing, digitalisation, climate, security, education, healthcare and geopolitics require a coherent approach – beyond day-to-day politics and beyond our national borders.
• We no longer live in a period of reconstruction but of reconfiguration: a time of fundamental change in our economic, political and social systems. These shifts affect how we approach responsibility and solutions – for example, individual versus collective solutions. They also change the way we interpret solidarity and reshape the distribution of power and information. Think of the impact of AI or climate change. This necessitates – and is already triggering – a broad recalibration in the labour market, economy, politics and society as a whole, with the distribution of power and influence as a central theme.
• Support from businesses and civil society for these upcoming changes – and for the resulting policies – will be crucial. As well as public-private partnerships. How?
• To look at this more concretely, we work from the framework of three pillars:
  • From GDP to broad prosperity
  • Participation and representation
  • Transition-based thinking

I] Broad prosperity and the economy of the future (the “what”)

• From growth to broad prosperity: “Today we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive. What we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow.”
  — Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics As SER we think economic growth can still be positive and needed to maintain welfare and well-being, but it should be sustainable in all respect.
• Our economy has long been guided by a narrow concept of prosperity – material prosperity and GDP – whereas health, the living environment, safety, education and social connections should also be considered part of our broader prosperity. Steering towards broad prosperity promises a more sustainable and inclusive economy and society, characterised by an equitable distribution across groups, regions and generations. This allows for a more balanced relationship between people, planet and profit.
• This requires reformulating our economic objective to ensure a social market economy based on broad prosperity, rather than economic growth alone. A new perspective is needed.
• What kind of economy do we need to realise broad prosperity? In its vision for the economy of the future, the SER advocates for a social market economy grounded in broad prosperity. We do not want an economy full of conflict and injustice due to a race to the bottom for natural resources, financial means and labour, but an economy built on strong social dialogue – in the Netherlands, in Brussels, and inspired by your example of Nordrhein-Westfalen😉. We aim for a Rhineland Model 2.0, including firm agreements on work and working conditions that strengthen job and income security, improve lifelong access to training, and enable smooth combinations of work, learning and (informal) care.
• This vision aligns closely with the principle of a just transition. The SER is developing transition pathways to address reconfiguration issues such as individual versus collective responsibility. Industrial decarbonisation shows what is needed: investment in clean technologies, temporary government support, training and learning programmes, attention to a healthy environment, involvement of residents, and a rebalancing of influence and power relations.
• Of course: Not everything is possible – and certainly not at the same time. Scarcity (of energy, labour and space) forces us to make choices: what do we truly value? So, exchanges between economic, social and ecological resources and investments will be needed, also over time. We need long year commitment to take the steps toward broad prosperity for all. Some investments will pay out at later moments. It is about defining transition paths to take short term steps for long term changes.
• This is how we build an economy based on sustainable growth and innovation, strengthened earning capacity within planetary boundaries, responsible entrepreneurship and a well-functioning European level playing field – combined with strong collective provisions. In this way we advance broad prosperity for all and promote equal opportunities.
• In this way we are currently working on recommendations for difficult dossiers such as tax and benefits reform, the future of agriculture and the energy transition.

Dilemmas arise, of course…

• Economic growth versus sustainability: how do we shift the paradigm? These two can go together.
  
  
• Labour migration, labour market shortages, housing pressures and increasing strains on public services.
  
  
• Reducing administrative burdens on businesses versus ensuring transparency and a level playing field. For companies, this can mean high costs, slow decision-making, less innovation and competitive disadvantages – while we also expect them to ensure good and safe working conditions, progress on sustainability and inclusive employment.
  
  
• For example: Recent European developments show that the regulatory burden on companies, driven by reporting (ESG) and due diligence requirements, is leading to fewer obligations being imposed on smaller businesses. The threshold is being set at companies with 5,000 employees or more. At the same time, there must still be transparency within the supply chain regarding social and environmental impacts, albeit on a voluntary basis.
  
  The Dutch SER model for International Corporate Social Responsibility (in Dutch IMVO), in which a covenant is concluded between companies, civil-society organisations and the government, can support this and has been praised by the OECD. We are working on cooperation and commitment, concrete agreements and targets, independent chairmanship, and the exchange of best practices. We believe this will become crucial in the near future, and for that reason we have proposed during the formation of our new government to initiate this on an economy-wide scale.

Reflection

• Broad prosperity is not left wing or right wing but it requires political choices on the exchanges between economic development, social inclusion and the ecological footprint – and therefore economic democracy.
  
• Who decides what counts as “prosperity”? Companies, citizens, government? Therefore the second pillar of my perspective is:

II] Participation and representation (the “who”)

• At last month’s joint council meeting marking 75 years of the SER and 80 years of the Labour Foundation, Prime Minister Schoof put it as follows:

“Especially in these times of polarisation, we cannot do without places of dialogue and connection like the SER. Places where the long term prevails over the issues of the day, where competing interests are shaped into sensible compromises. Where attention is paid to the overarching interest – to socio-economic policy that serves companies and the people who work for them. And thereby serves society as a whole.”

SER as a platform of organised interests

• This is the heart of the polder model: the organised representation of employers, employees and Crown-appointed members.
• But representativeness is under pressure: declining union membership, increasing fragmentation, new forms of work (self-employment, platform work).
• As association rates fall, the foundations of societal democracy narrow.

Herman Tjeenk Willink once said:

• Democracy rests on three pillars: political democracy, social democracy and an independent media.
• All three are under pressure – but societal democracy, of which the SER is a part, is crucial for maintaining trust.
• So, we have to strengthen representation and participation of crucial stakeholders en link with groups in society whose interests are at stake. That creates a second dilemma I want to raise.

Dilemma 2: representation or participation?

• How do we renew representation at a time when people no longer automatically organise themselves? Societal changes have led to self-employed workers now being represented in the SER and young people being given a stronger voice.
• Participation should not be merely “being consulted” but “helping to shape”. The SER has developed a participation guide to give concrete form to including more diverse voices. Examples: for our report on the future position of agriculture in Dutch economy we also involve the association of young farmers, in the report on labor migration we involved local community representation and in our report on informal care and labour we work together with representatives of informal care takers.

Reflection

• When the connection between citizens and political institutions weakens, democracy as a whole weakens.
• The strength of the Dutch consultative tradition lies in organisation from the bottom up – not top-down technocracy. Yet, society is more and more fragmented, so it’s not that clear who really represents all interests at stake.  

Transition-based thinking (the “how”)

From policy to change

• Transitions require collaboration between government, businesses, knowledge institutions and citizens. They also sometimes require self-regulation within sectors, such as through covenants. An example are the IMVO-covenants I already addressed.
• But transitions are not linear: they are uncertain, adaptive and at times conflictual.

In my Inaugural Lecture at Tilburg University – now one year ago - “Navigating the Narrow Path to Broad Prosperity: Societal Transition and Our Polder Model”, I call for transition-based governance: not waiting for full consensus, but acting with legitimacy.

• Transition-based thinking involves:
  • Connecting: bringing people, planet and profit together.
  • Distributing: making broad prosperity more equitable, now and for future generations. Make the exchanges between economic activity and investments, effects on social inclusion and the impact on natural resources more explicit.
  • Justifying: making values and solidarity explicit.
  • Organising: determining who sits at the table and how development pathways take shape. With public-private partnerships.
  • Regulating: setting out what must be arranged formally and what can be addressed through covenants. So, regulation by law, but also self-regulation by codes of conduct and covenants for public-private cooperation.
  
  
• This requires good information, clear rules, respectful conduct and leadership that mobilises people and resources. In transitions, it is not only about what we change but above all how we organise the process – democratically, fairly and effectively.

Dilemma 3: momentum or support?

• How quickly can we move without losing legitimacy?
• Rapid transitions without support trigger resistance (from farmers, citizens, businesses).
• Too much consultation without pace leads to stagnation.
• What kind of leadership is needed, are we true leaders of transformation?

Reflection

• Transition-based thinking requires us to democratise not only outcomes but also processes and input.
• Who sits at the table determines what changes. It’s all about the rules of the game (institutions) and the way leadership facilitates change, formally and informally.  

The consultative economy as the backbone of political democracy

The promise of democracy

• At its origin, democracy offered an economic promise: that ordinary life would improve.
• When the economy falters or when people feel they lack influence, political democracy falters too.
• There are various layers of influence: co-determination anchored in law, collective labour agreements, national dialogue and international engagement (EU and beyond).

Today

• We see a crisis of trust between citizens, institutions and politics.
• Restoring that trust requires a renewed social infrastructure: associations, cooperatives, unions and civic collectives.
• Social democracy is the cement that upholds liberal parliamentary democracy.

Final thought / proposition for discussion

“Without a say in the economy, democracy loses its soul.”

How can we strengthen economic democracy in a time of scarcity, accelerating change and growing mistrust?

Or, as Prime Minister Pisas of Curacao put it at the recent AICESIS meeting of social and economic councils:

“The power of dialogue is stronger than the pull of division.”