1 / 26

The Social Ambitions of the Coalition: Soft-nosed liberalism

The Social Ambitions of the Coalition: Soft-nosed liberalism. Peter Taylor-Gooby BA New Paradigms in Public Policy Programme. Outline. The Coalition’s programme:

dolph
Download Presentation

The Social Ambitions of the Coalition: Soft-nosed liberalism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Social Ambitions of the Coalition:Soft-nosed liberalism Peter Taylor-Gooby BA New Paradigms in Public Policy Programme

  2. Outline • The Coalition’s programme: • Very rapid, very large cuts, hitting most vulnerable, (esp service cuts: loc govt 27%; soc ho 80% - at £64bn, 4x benefit cuts of £17bn) • Complex restructuring, market-centred, concerned to shift responsibility • Real economic, political, social risks • So why? • Paper considers various explanations

  3. Cutting harder faster(State exp % gdp IMF WEO)

  4. Collapse of growth= steeper cutsGDP per capita (US $) IMF WEO

  5. Tax + Benefit changes regressive:Browne, J., 2010,http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5313

  6. (Larger) service cuts regressive (depending on what you mean)

  7. Restructuring • Schools, HE, NHS, Local Govt, Work Programme, Police • Outsourcing: for-profit/non-profit sectors • Any willing/capable/qualified provider • Competition; shift of responsibility • Trajectory unclear (Suffolk, Bury, Brighton reversals, NHS, Police)

  8. Explanations • Prima facie: • We must ‘deal decisively with our country’s record debts ... and set the country on the course for recovery’ (2010 June Budget) + • ‘Politics as normal’ (reward friends, weaken enemies, shift blame) • Class Model? - politics • New State Model? - economic • Permanent austerity + shifting responsibility • New Growth Model? – political economy • Permanent re-balancing of labour/capital thro’ state engagement

  9. 1a: An exceptional problem?Net public debt: IMF WEO

  10. And… • Long-term loan finance: UK 88% 5+ yrs, av. maturity 14 yrs, Germany 6 yrs, US under 5 • Interest relatively low. • No serious Forex/ credit rating problem • Pub sector wage bill comparable • UK 12% GDP, Sweden 15%, France 14%, Canada 13%, US 11% • UK 4th lowest demog. spending increases by 2025 on health, long-term care and pensions 14th lowest of 19 OECD countries

  11. 1b: Normal politics • Cuts bear on Labour voters and areas • Consummate blame avoidance • Astute manoeuvring within coalition + use of media (?) • Opportunities for business (party finance) • Threat of rising unemployment etc • Much uncertainty, but …..

  12. ‘A real need to cut spending on public services to pay off the very high national debt we now have…’ IPSOS

  13. 2. Class Conflict Model • GDP loss imposed mainly on working class, women and vulnerable groups • Restructuring weakens working class capacity to resist cuts by privatisation, splitting deserving/ undeserving poor • In the context of shift from European to US levels of inequality • Declining share of World Product to labour (Glynn etc)

  14. But… • Is the coalition that organised/ • Is this part of a broader issue – see Models 3 and 4.

  15. 3: New State Model • Inbuilt pressures for state expansion • Cost-disease: Baumol, Bacon, Iversen • New Politics: Pierson, Scharpf • Resistance to cut-backs • Inertia: P+W, Gamble (but collapse of growth) • Previous cuts short-term: Hood • Failure of cost-efficiency measures (ONS) • (Rare) examplars from overseas • Population ageing as an issue

  16. State sector productivity 1996-2008 • Probs of conceptualisation/ measurement • Changing working practices, better management, stronger incentives, union confrontations, decentralisation, internal markets, clinical governance, structural reorganisations, targets, efficiency savings etc, by Con/ Lab govts • BUT NO net gain

  17. Containing expansion? • Education: ‘productivity’ rose to 2001 (school pop. grew faster than inputs); then fell back. • Health care, productivity fluctuated with a slight net fall, due most importantly to increases in the drugs bill and in labour costs. (Ayoubkhani et al 2010, Penaloza et al 2010).

  18. Comparisons: NZ • Trad. Agriculture, half to UK; EU • 1975 subsidies 18% mfg. 49% agric; mfg invest. – 1980s debt, forex problems, deval 20% • 1984 Rogernomics – end subsidies, free trade, float $, denat (3X Thatcher) • Pub sector new managerialism, internal mkts, pension and U/E ben cuts, GST • 1990: 25% ben cuts; no rent subs, competitive mkt across schools and health care • Debt 0% by 2006; PE 45 - 35% by 1994, stable

  19. Canada • Deteriorating terms of trade thro’ 1990s • Unsuccessful state-led mfg investment • 1993 Liberal govt, cut pub sector workforce 23%, pub sector wages 5%, cut deficit 10-2% in 2 years • Major state level cuts; NPM and competitive mkts introduced • Spending 53-40%, debt 65-30% 1996-2006, stable

  20. Canada and NZ: a success story?State exp. and net public debt %gdp IMF WEO

  21. Impacts • Poverty: • NZ: 14% to 17% to 23%, mid-1980s, -90s, -00s • Canada: 18% to 17% to 19% (OECD) • Inequality: • NZ Gini .27 to .32 to .34 • Canada: .28 to .28 to .32 • Generosity index: • NZ 29.3 to 25.2 to 24.5, 1983 - 1995 - 2002 • Canada: 23.2 to 25.1 to 24.4 (Scruggs 2011)

  22. Much to be said, but.. • Restructuring costs money (Universal Credit £1.7bn; NHS £2bn; HE unclear?) • Will changes reduce spending long-term or just keep spending at trend? • Perhaps more about shifting responsibility/ avoiding blame/ reframing citizenship than saving cash

  23. 4. New Growth Model • Weakness of British growth model since ? • Shift from mfg + Keynesianism to service + less regulated market • ‘Privatised Keynesianism’? (Crouch, Hay), vulnerable to financial ‘bubbles’ • Wilson: corporatism; Thatcher: Schumpeterianism; Blair: investment + mkt

  24. But… • Short-term: loss of public sector contribution to demand, damaging growth and profits etc (even OECD expresses concern Economic Outlook 89 2011 ch 4 p 240) • Long-term: permanent loss of state-led human capital/social investment

  25. Soft-nosed liberalism • Market sector leads • Smaller, simpler state, but not a Thatcherite opposition of state and market • Responsibility transferred to non-state actors (market, non-profit, local) • Govt avoids blame? • Values rather than attacks citizens

  26. The Coalition programme ? • Far-reaching, precipitate, but success partial? • Normal politics/ cutting to cut debt + • Class struggle + • Shrunken state + • New liberal growth model + • Soft-nosed liberalism: embedding and legitimising retreat of the state?

More Related