Coming out of the utegate/emailgate fiasco, I’ve seen a lot of variants on the claim that interventionist policies, like OzCar, are conducive to corruption, while economic liberalism reduces the scope for wrongdoing. I’ll just offer a few observations (readers with access to Google can fill in the details).
* If the standard of behavior implicit in criticism of Wayne Swan were applied to the Howard government, hardly any minister in that government could have remained in office. That particularly includes Howard and Turnbull.
* The Howard government breached standards of public probity on a scale never before seen with an Australian government, and approached only by the later years of Hawke-Keating and the worst of state governments. Not only did numerous ministers engage in activity that personally enriched them, and would have been regarded as corrupt in any preceding government, but the government consistently undermined the integrity of the public service, engaged in cronyism to an unprecedented extent and (Howard in particular) lied consistently and shamelessly. With relatively few exceptions, economic liberals didn’t complain about this.
* The Thatcher-Major, Reagan and Bush II governments were among the most sleazy and corrupt in the modern history of the UK and US (Clinton, Bush I and Blair were marginally better).*
In summary, the idea that economic liberalism goes with high standards of public probity doesn’t pass the laugh test.
* Defenders of economic liberalism may wish to disclaim one or more of these. But I’m not going to respond, except with derision, to anyone who tries to dodge the issue by any of the standard excuses familiar from apologists for the failure of Communism: never really tried, the fault of the individuals not the theory, etc.Meet the Browns film
John Quiggin 
Jack Strocchi will be furious and write several long responses. Is it necessary to provoke him?
(I meant regarding the Howard comments, rather than the post in total.)
I’ll be interested to see how Jack squares his regular praise of Howard’s Machiavellianism with a defence of “Honest John”. In anticipation, please, Jack, no references to claimed successful outcomes under Howard. Let’s take it as read that he had some, and leave debate on how many to another time.
I would dispute some of the examples, but it would not be relevant to my objection.
Nobody suggests that ‘neoliberal’ policies eliminate the desire for self-enrichment at public expense. Liberals have instead long-argued that while human nature is hard to change, institutions can be designed that either harness self-interest for other-regarding purposes (eg the market) or restrict the opportunity for improper conduct (limited government, checks and balances, etc).
Nor can anyone seriously argue that neoliberalism was more than one influence among many in the last few decades, or that any major Western politicans declared him or herself to be a ‘neoliberal’.
So I don’t think the post shows any causal connection between neoliberalism and the behaviour it complains of.
PrQ,
I do not think that I can be accused of ever defending “Honest John” – but to claim that Howard was anything other than a vintage old school centralising conservative is, IMHO, a bit rich. I, for one, have never recognised him as a liberal.
On the bigger point, Latham, in the AFR last week, was right. While the politicians retain or increase the power to make industry policy then corruption of that policy will follow. Whether the corruption is in favour of the already wealthy, the union bosses or any other group of people is simply irrelevant. Rudd has been notably restrained by an inability to force things through the Senate but if, after the next election the Greens gain the balance of power that will change.
The main support (or facilitator) of probity in any economic system is freedom of information.
If all players have the same information it will be almost impossible to cheat one another.
Armed with good information, any immoral or fraudulent proposition can be easily contested or exposed.
John – Unless you offer some kind of definition of ‘economic liberalism’ this is just going to degenerate into partisan ranting.
Does ‘economic liberalism’ mean the advocacy of policies ‘similar to those of Thatcher, Reagan Bush II and Howard’, or does it mean something else?
Chris,
That is true if it is a free economic system. Ours is not – there is a substantial degree of government power. It is no good knowing that the government is cheating you if they can pass legislation that forces you to agree to their terms. That is a fundamental difference between the government and other people in the market.
Oh … and if you say that it’s not up to you to offer a definition I’d think that was dodging the issue.
Andrew
Bad politics can interfere. Greater freedom of information, and empowerment of mechanisms to ensure FOI, can counter bad politics over time.
John Faulkner’s efforts in this regard to protect the intent of FOI against bad departmental decisions, is worth noting.
I am not proposing a Ann Ryan or LeRouche view here – but a democratic counter-commercial privacy mechanism as much as a anti-big government.
Today government and law may appear to “force” people to do things, but under capitalism or fuedalism, commerce can even be more forceful and detrimental.
“Ayn Rand” NOT “Ann Ryan”
Hardly, Chris.
The use of force by government is not a question of appearence. A failure to pay taxes will not appear to get me arrested – I will be arrested.
If I think that a company is behaving badly and cheating me I can choose not to buy their product today. With a government I have a choice of Turnbull or Rudd in, at most, three years. Risking unpopularity in the interim may well have some influence on government misbehaviour – I think our host here would argue that with Howard that was not enough, but I would argue a more general case that it is never enough.
Which time scale is the better for correcting behaviour? I would think that behavioural psychologists would argue that an immediate sanction is better than one that is uncertain and carried out over a period of years. You may have a different opinion.
“Does ‘economic liberalism’ mean the advocacy of policies ’similar to those of Thatcher, Reagan Bush II and Howard’, or does it mean something else?”
Broadly speaking, yes, but I’m getting a bit frustrated with these continuing calls to define terms. Seven years ago, I offered the following three point definition
The core of the neoliberal program is
(i) to remove the state altogether from ‘non-core’ functions such as the provision of infrastructure services
(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out, voucher schemes and so on
(iii) to reject redistribution of income except insofar as it is implied by the provision of a basic ‘safety net’.
and I’ve linked to it lots of times since. Of course, no particular politician exactly exemplifies the program, etc etc. but that doesn’t mean that there is any real difficulty in identifying what is meant by this term, or that it doesn’t have a real referent.
Since people complained about neoliberalism I switched to “Economic liberalism”. A bit more here here linking to you.
I would really, really like to get away from this definitional stuff.
To follow up, I should note that (as I’ve said lots of times) Howard abandoned economic liberalism after about 2004, except for the last flourish of WorkChoices, and Bush II was similarly inconsistent.
Chris – Ann Ryan..Ayn Rand…transposition of the characters. A sophisticated dyslexia – even accountants do it with numbers. Nicely juggled except you lost the d and gained an n – a better one would have been Andy Ran (and he might – youve got a good argument).
Whatever the case in developed countries, there is no doubt at all that in many developing countries the only check on govermental corruption is its weakness. In particular, all through Africa and Latin America the old import-replacement strategies of the dependista school led to an awful lot of informal “taxes” being levied.
Core 1) and core 2)as mentioned by JQ above has proved a disaster in infrastructure, health and education in Australia and core 3) has proved a disaster in the rise in inequality which contributed to the global financial crisis. Neoliberalism – I think it can be safely summed up as almost rotten to the core. The problem is also that any government function came to be seen as undesirable, core or non core…to wit, prior govt attacks on the ABC, national museums, public servants (” bungling bureaucrats”), universities (“leftwing hot houses”), public school systems (same), previously solid govt financial institutions (AIDC), dept of main roads, public rail systems..the list of government dept targets just went on and on getting bigger by the day.
John – I think your definition is helpful here. On your definition of neoliberalism (aka economic liberalism) it’s hard to see how it would reduce the scope for corruption.
.
You say that one element of the core program is:
.
(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out, voucher schemes and so on
.
It seems to me that shifting from direct government provision to outsourcing would create new opportunities for cronyism, corruption etc.
.
Followers of Hayek would say that economic liberalism relies on the application of impartial rules rather than arbitrary decision making by the executive. That’s true, but it raises your ‘never been tried’ objection.
.
Of course there are certain kinds of corruption and favouritism that flourish in systems of direct government provision (nepotism, the spoils system etc) but over time, governments in developed nations have found ways of minimising these opportunities.
.
In the same way it’s possible to develop systems which minimise opportunities for corruption and favouritism in outsourcing.
.
So, given your definition, I’d have to agree. There’s no reason to think that there would automatically be less wrongdoing under an economically liberal government.
Prof Q, I would argue the Howard government abandoned economic liberalism prior to 2004. Probably after about their first three budgets or so.
This is evidenced by, among other things, the fact that the Labor Opposition changed their critique of the government. In their earlier years of Opposition, Labor criticised the Howard government for being a bunch of mean-spirited economic rationalists. By 2001 they were criticising the government for being a high-taxing, high-spending government.
I would cite the Howard government and Bush 2 as good examples in support of the thesis that higher government spending increases the risk of corruption and reduces public probity.
MU, It’s certainly true that high-spending rightwing governments are the worst of the lot in this respect. Having absorbed the view that public spending is inherently corrupt, they exemplify it in practice.
Don, a similar point can be made about privatisation. It capitalises in one fell swoop all the opportunities for corruption/favoritism associated with an indefinite period of public ownership. And if, as with Telstra, the privatised entity requires regulation, the game restarts on day one.
A private firm has never, I repeat never, given a job to someone because they’re a mate, or a son of the managing partner etc.
What it comes down to is definitions, because if you privatise just about everything while simultaneously limiting the restrictions on ‘private’ parties, you are not going to see breaches of proper purpose, ultra vires, or improper benefit principles being invoked in respect of those private parties because they aren’t held to the same standards as public ones.
To put it another way, a large chunk of day to day commercial operating would be a breach of probity or administrative rules if conducted by government. Remove government from those areas and you don’t get the issues. For example there would probably be no problem with the car dealers taking potential providers of private finance out to lunch, giving them free cars, etc, nor with those private financiers saying “look they’ve been good to us, this is a mutually beneficial relationship, let’s give something back”.
It is disturbing that a lengthy process like the Garnaut review can be subverted by a few days of direct lobbying by vested interests. Seems like certain groups get two bites at the cherry; first a submission that has to stand up to level headed scrutiny then a face to face with the minister that includes veiled threats and emotional pleas for special treatment. Recall that Howard cancelled the trial of an injectable drug at the behest of the father of someone who had died from a drug in tablet form. Seems level headed thinking and the bigger picture go out the window when politicians overrule the advice of committees and bureaucrats. This is not altogether unlike Iran where the ayatollahs presume to know what is best.
Armangy,
There would be a problem if the private providers of finance were taking the cars for themselves and then handing out company money to the dealers. That, though, is the point. The private shareholders of the company concerned would be the ones to suffer – and they have a choice to invest or not to invest. They also have a choice to elect the Board and can (if 10% of them agree) call an EGM at any time to consider just about anything in relation to the company.
With a government they would be handing out money acquired by force from all taxpayers and are subject to oversight from all of us only occasionally. Government can, by legislation, externalise all (or most) of their bad decisions. The ability of private companies to do so is much more limited. It is not zero, true, but it is severely limited.
The post includes a series of politically-motivated, partisan sneers at the Howard government without any evidence to back up the impression created. In an earlier posting you described this government as utterly ‘corrupt’ so it would really matter what anyone in the current Labor government does it will always be guilty of a lessor sin than that created by, you claim, the Liberals.
But it is all irrelevant from the perspective of Swan’s problems. Even if it were true that the Howard government was utterly corrupt (I think it was one of the best governments we have ever had so I don’t agree) this says nothing about Swan’s attempt to hand out favours to mates.
If Turnbull has illegally handed out $10 million to a mate then prosecute him in the courts and destroy him politically. But don’t use unproven allegations to avoid forcing Swan to own up to what he did. The point has more general force than this – poor policies by Labor cannot be excused on the grounds of what the Coalition did or did not do.
Your general point that economic liberalism does not foster less corruption is in a sense false by definition. Corruption opportunities increase when handouts exist that can be corruptly allocated. The fact is, as you note, that the Howard Government was too timid to pursue policies of economic liberalism so that at least using recent Australian data you cannot test the hypothesis.
Corporatist or statist policies tend to lead to political corruption whether or not it is intended. I know of developers who have given literally tens of thousands in donations just before they receive approval by local or state governments to build another block of apartmets.
When you have a government that dishes out money then it is just in the nature of man than mistakes will occur and that nepotism/corruption will rear it’s ugly head. Subsisides will be given to those who have given donations to the party. Business that speaks out against the government gets nothing compared to those that a silent (think of Combet’s attack on the mineral industry).
I think your argument is built upon your refusal to accept any problems with government intervention in the economy. It is built upon the false premise that corporatism/statism programmes are run by the smartest, the most honest and most perfect individuals otherwise your broad-side attack against liberalism falls flat.
One other thing. Economic liberalism is against cash given to companies while your ideas are about selectively dishing it out. Which programme has the greater potential to breed corruption?
“That, though, is the point. ” It is? I thought the allegations against Swan fell more in the area of ‘extra attention for mates who assist your own enterprise’, something mostly legal in the corporate world.
I also disagree, respectfully, that in a political economy where most functions have been moved from the ‘public’ to ‘private’ spheres, the people affected by such corruption are always confined to shareholders.
“A private firm has never, I repeat never, given a job to someone because they’re a mate, or a son of the managing partner etc.”
Oh dear, the family who owns the corner store might disagree. And so might the Packers, the Murdochs, anyone whose ever done any networking …
hc, SeanG: These a priori arguments are all very well, but you appear to have ignored the service provided by Google. Can I suggest that you try the following search terms
AWB, Manildra, Wooldridge+RCAGP, Reith + tenix, Phonegate, Reith + balaclavas, Haneef, Alston + Switkowski, Parer + “family trust”, “Stan Howard”, Children overboard, WMD (I can keep going more or less indefinitely)
When you’ve finished feel free to provide more logical arguments proving that economic liberalism = probity “by definition”. I will happily supply equivalent arguments about the merits of communism.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
Economic liberalism is about removing the sphere of government from how the marketplace is meant to act except to enforce contracts and provide minimal regulation. Corporatism or statism is about an active government management of the economy through the use of subsidies, specific tax treatments, and waivers from high regulation in order to selectively grow business ie. “pick winners”.
In any political system where large government has a flexible use of subsidies for corporations but where the “political masters” are reliant on donations, then the system begins to be corrupted because patronage to companies invariably becomes linked to patronage by politicans. How often do we hear of NSW Labor getting into more strife because developers who have donated hundreds of thousands just so happens to also get planning approval for massive developments? What about the latent extent of political corruption in Europe where big business and big government are mates and put together bailouts that devy logic.
Corporatist or statism, which is your preferred model, eventually becomes crony capitalism because it is built upon state largesse.
Now economic liberalism is about removing the state from the affairs of the marketplace. Political donations cannot secure favour in a system built upon the government only intervening when laws are broken rather than intervening when subsidies are requested.
What we have today is the government dishing out money left, right and centre. Business knows that it can get its worth by either remaining silent with bad legislation, by donating to the party in power or by complaining that they will “lose jobs” forcing timid politicans to ride with a package.
I hate to mention something else. We have never had genuine economic liberalism in Australia. We have moved in that direction but we have never achieved it. So your argument about linking Howard to economic liberalism to corrupt practices only works if you decide to ignore government largesse and intervention during his 11 years in power. A large number of assumptions on your part in putting this post together.
Yes, so privatising state assets so your mates can buy significant shares in them isn’t a corrupt aspect of neo-liberalism at all…
“I hate to mention something else. We have never had genuine economic liberalism in Australia. ”
Then don’t mention it. As I said at the outset, this is an all-purpose excuse for failure, worn out by its use in defence of communism.
‘I hate to mention something else. We have never had genuine socialism in the Soviet Union. We have moved in that direction but we have never achieved it. So your argument about linking Brezhnev to socialism to corrupt practices only works if you decide to ignore the absence of worker democracy and capture of collective property by the party bureaucracy during his 18 years in power.’
Snap!
John, I agree let’s be a bit specific.
Peter Reith advised Tenix after he left government. Hardly evidence of corruption while he was in government. The AWB inquiry found no evidence of political corruption – for most Australians it was a non-event anyway – the AWB was trying hard to sell wheat in a notoriously tough market…..Claims that there were WMD in Iraq hardly evidence of corruption as the UN and most governments of the world thought it was true. A former head of the Dept of Foreign Affairs in told me he was sure it was true because the Americans had supplied Iraq with the technology! Alston gave Ziggy a leg up for the job at Telstra – was this corruption or picking a pretty decent man.
I could go on just as you say you could. The cases you cite are part Labor mythology and part just unproven allegations. You can assert these things and a few rabid Labor supporters will cheerfully go ‘Hear! Hear!’. But most of the community (including most Labor supporters) don’t make their political judgments based on these sorts of claims. They are not generally believed which is why Howard held office for so long and was thrown out by only a few voters in a hundred switching their allegiances.
By the way you didn’t clarify how these unproven claims (even if they were proven) justify improper actions on part of Labor. Can a citizen claim immunity from prosecution for rape on the grounds that at least he didn’t murder his victim. I really don’t understand this attitude – partisan politics aside good government will never be achieved if wrong actions are excused because others are claimed to have done worse.
Matt #29
Privatising state assets via floating them on the sharemarket does not correspond to dishing out massive subsidies because companies and individuals pay to be owners.
ProfQ #30
Well professor then your logic is faulty – how can economic liberalism be inseparable in terms of corruption if we never had it in the first place after 2004 (or some argue the rot started earlier)? You make a sweeping statement based upon the actions of a previous government which was well known for their largesse.
I know you dislike the idea of economic liberalism – after all, who does not like governments spending taxpayer money on selected groups for maximum electoral advantage but you are flying in the face of history, and of commonsense. Corporatism corrupts because it is the disperal of money to individual groups by politicans.
Can you at least have the courage to acknowledge that where there is a large goverment dishing out billions to industry then there are the conditions for political corruption? Or a you so enraptured by the concept of big government that you fail to see any problems of having a large government?
IMO, the critical challenge in #27 is: ” When you’ve finished feel free to provide more logical arguments proving that economic liberalism = probity ‘by definition’. ”
This critical bit remains unanswered. Maybe the adjective ‘more’ can be taken out to make it technically easier to judge the answer.
So far I have not heard the arguments why social democracy in a moden democratic setting – Corporatism/Statism – is inherantly superior when it comes to political probity especially considering that there is far greater scope for corruptive practices under a corporatist model than under a liberal model.
Alternately:
Economic liberalism is about reducing the sphere of government down to enforcing a minimal set of contact laws in the belief that the sum of individually preferred actions within those legal constraints must somehow mysteriously produce the best overall result, and, even if it doesn’t, and things screw up really badly, we’ll still always be able to tell you we are right and point to the abundant failures of alternate systems because no one will ever be stupid enough to fully institute our vision.
Jim,
A nice definition for people who believe in the benvolent power of government despite history showing time and again that such belief is misplaced. I do not argue that the markets are perfect but within economic liberalism there is less scope for corruptive practices than under a corporatist or statist model. We have had economic liberalism before the Second World War, by the way, you might be interested in knowing a thing or two about that. A great period of technological and intellectual development, but that is besides the point.
In this debate we are asking: which system has the greatest scope for corruption? You and people who tend to agree with you have failed to put together a cogent answer to the question because the facts are stark and they are irrefutable. In a system where government decisions about subsides, taxes etc are made by a few for reasons that are hardly transparent then you increase the scope and opportunity for corruptive practices to feather the bed of ministers and individuals within governments. Do you not have the courage to accept that?
Can a partisan rant degenerate into a partisan rant?
@jquiggin
But “health, education, income security” are definitely not core, unless you are starting from a position that builds them in (like social democracy). Compare and contrast those with Gibbon’s “… the three principal objects of a regular police [polity], safety, plenty, and cleanliness…” (Chapter XVII, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Clearly plenty and cleanliness are prior to and necessary for income security and health respectively, but they stop short of those, and education is nowhere – while your list omits anything relating to safety in general. And indeed, I for one don’t see your list as the proper preserve of governments, in that in a properly functioning system they would be practically accessible to individuals anyway. To me, the larger issues are to do with getting things working right rather than supporting people in a mess, while leaving the mess (though I wouldn’t want a transition in which support was removed before people could manage on their own – perhaps my major point of difference with the other polarity, after not wanting their preferred state support for things that suit them).
Going back to today’s newspaper article re Turnbull and his neighbour Matt Handbury – is this the same Handbury who is, or was, part of the Murdoch clan? If it is, perhaps the favour was being done for a newspaper proprietor who formerly supported some urgent action on climate change. This is supposition as I have no way of checking if indeed my understanding is correct.
Again regarding Opposition interest in “the email”, I found it interesting to go to Hansard for 4th June (the day the matter was first raised in Parliament after lunch) and consider carefully the tone of Eric Abetz’ questioning of Godwin Grech. It appears to be based on some prior knowledge even at that point, so the claim currently made that the focus now only arose after the Senate hearing last Friday lacks credibility once again.
It won’t make any difference what system you put in place if power is allowed to concentrate ‘in space and time’. If power can reside in individuals for any length of time then individuals who seek only power and only the advancement of their particular interests will gravitate towards control of those positions that allow them to further their interests and their interests alone.
Pr Q says:
In one sense Pr Q seems to be missing the point, confusing political parties with politico-economies. “Economic liberalism” is a politico-economomic philosophy that prevailed in the early 19th to mid-20th C, which more or less constitutionalised a small public sector.
Since the public sector was fairly small and boring, there was not much at stake with most public policy. Hence instances of companies bribing or compromising public officials were fairly minimal.
So up until WWII, at least in economically liberal Anglophone states, there wasnt alot of money to be made in politics. And most politicians of that era seem almost charmingly naive and honest. Hughes ran a farm to supplement his income. Curtin and Chiffley were both men of modest means. Menzies, although rather grand in his carriage, did not even own his own house.
The one exception was vice, which proves the rule. Here public officials regulated at sizeable sector of the economy and were naturally a target for black-market criminals. Therefore you had Chicago.
But in another respect I couldn’t agree more. Contemporary “economically liberal” politicians appear to vigorously practice what they preach. They seem to have a keen eye for the main chance. Although, in this respect, its hard to see the special villainy of the late L/NP govt. Both Hawke and Keating became multi-millionaires through their political connections.
More generally, Pr Q hits the nail right on the head. Contemporary (or what I call post-modern) economic liberalism in the provision of natural state functions, such as public utilities and community services.
It is an open invitation for graft and jiggery-pokery because of the politicization of what should be professionally run public services. There are vast sums of money at stake and plenty of opportunities for patronage to favoured commercial tenderers or vendors. Pr Q’s article, retrieved from dusty cyber archives, explains how the the growth in privatization led to rent-seeking:
And there is massive evidence of private sector rent-seeking between consenual capitalist actors, what with the growth of rock-star CEOs, cronyistic executive remuneration committees, lavish expense accounts and so on.
As Kinsley says, “the scandal is whats legal”.
In the post at 23 HC refers to criticism of a total of $11 million ($10 million plus $1 million GST) being paid to a company run by Matt Handbury, who besides being Rupert Murdoch’s nephew, was a member and contributor to Turnbull’s re-election committee in Wentworth in the 2007 election, for unproven Russian rainfall technology which was announced during the second week of the election campaign.
HC says of this: “But don’t use unproven allegations to avoid forcing Swan to own up to what he did” which he earlier describes as an “attempt to hand out favours to mates”
The burden of HC’s remark about Malcolm Turnbull’s amazing grant on Russian rainfall technology was that if “Turnbull has illegally handed out $10 million to a mate then prosecute him”.
Let us turn this around and see what HC is really saying in relation to Swan: “if Swan has illegally handed out nothing to a mate, then prosecute him.”
Obviously, one cannot prosecute Swan when there was no consideration involved. Perhaps Turnbull could have been prosecuted, but somehow I think HC would have been leading those shouting “Government intimidation”
In his post HC is saying the sin of Swan was attempting to hand out favours to mates.
HC apparently does not know that the Liberal claim against Swan was that he was doing favours for the alleged “mate” of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
The evidence against Turnbull is that in the second week of an election campaign he announced an actual grant, totalling $11 million, with the beneficiary being someone who was on Turnbull’s re-election committee and a donor to his campaign.
Unfortunately, HC it is probable this was not illegal, just immoral. By contrast, nothing Swan did was either illegal or immoral.
The difference is Turnbull’s mate apparently received a total of $11 million while the PM’s (or Swan’s) mate received nothing.
But unlike Swan, Turnbull made his decision without any chance of contemporary Parliamentary scrutiny, while all Swan’s action have been scrutinised and he supplied extensive details to Parliament of his dealings with Grant and other car dealers.
What details did Turnbull provide to Parliament for his actual grant to Handbury’s company?
To summarise, Turnbull approved $11 million to the Matt Handbury company without scrutiny. Swan has not approved any money to John Grant, and this fact has received considerable scrutiny.
Matt Handbury is a neighbour and direct financial supporter of Turnbull. John Grant is not a neighbour or direct financial supporter of Swan.
The only thing that makes sense in the HC post at 23 is “Corruption opportunities increase when handouts exist that can be be corruptly allocated.”
There were no handouts approved by Swan to John Grant. There was a considerable handout approved by Turnbull to Handbury.
I found this quote from ProfQ interesting:
“(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out, voucher schemes and so on”
Does the good professor think that tax-paying parents are too stupid to know which school is best for their child? Does ProfQ want the government to dictate available schools to the very people who pay taxes to keep the machinery of public service operating? Isn’t this a patronising view to take on parents and their judgements about schooling for their children?
@Armagny Is anyone seriously asserting that private companies are less corrupt that government? Have they worked for both? Are they claiming that managers in private companies never take, er, associated rewards for, say, purchasing from one supplier rather than another, or approving a loan?
Governments generally are officially aware of corruption and take steps to detect it and address it (not always successfully but it cuts the extent). Private companies in my experience just do not have any profile for detecting corruption in their own ranks. Of course, they have performance measures, but these just keep the corruption down to traditional levels.
Also governments are subject to public scrutiny and private companies are not. To be sure, governments will try to claim that contracts with suppliers are ‘commercial in confidence’ and the like, but even so information is generally available at some level. When two companies make a deal, there is no reason to provide any information.
I realise that I am speaking very generally here but that is inevitable for this level of discussion.
The essence of JQs argument is that if you support a smaller state you support the Liberal party. If you support the Liberal party you are condoning corruption. If you condon corruption then clearly support for a smaller state is evil. It’s partisan and philosophical rubbish. Like who cares if the Liberals die in opposition anyway? They are hardly the great white knight that libertarians dream of. The fact that the ALP is crap does not mean the Liberals aren’t. And likewise the fact that the Liberals are crap does not mean that the ALP isn’t (which is what a lot of partisans here are trying to promote). A pox on both their houses. The government sucks and voting Liberal or Labor won’t change that.
MORE STRAW ECONOMIC MEN TICKLE-TORTURED TO DEATH BY Q’s LAUGH TEST
Q’s attacks “the claim that interventionist policies, like OzCar, are conducive to corruption, while economic liberalism reduces the scope for wrongdoing” by pointing to the corruption associated with various politicians that he labels economic liberals, including Howard, Thatcher, Reagan and Bush II.
Q also complains about demands (such as the one I made over on Andrew Norton’s blog, and have made here previously) that he be rigorous in his use of definitions, and notes that he defined neoliberalism (which he is now equating with economic liberalism, apparantly) some seven years ago.
Yet when one goes back to that earlier blogpost to find out what neo/eco liberalism is, we find this:
The emphasised point in brackets is crucial. The reason some people (such as Mark Latham, and SeanG above) have been arguing that neoliberalism involves less scope for corruption than interventionist policies such as OzCar is that it does not involve the provision of “subsidies for favoured businesses”.
So, in effect, Q was arguing that neo/eco liberalism involves more scope for corruption than interventionist policies by pointing to the corrupt activities of people who, by Q’s own admission, engaged in the very interventionist policies that neoliberalism does not provide the scope for!!!
I understand that one can get too bogged down in definitions and miss the larger picture, but the discussion of “neo/economic liberal/rational/anything-else-I-don’t-like ism” on this site suffers the opposite problem.
I think it would more useful if people ignored party politics and focused on which policies and policy frameworks encourage corruption and special favours.
Then you could ask whether the benefits of those policies outweighed the increased risk of corruption.