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 
Tom N, I’ll repeat my offer made to you over at Andrew Norton’s. I’ll agree that your favored ideology, whatever you want to call it, has never been implemented and therefore can’t possibly be blamed for anything, if you’ll agree not to sully its purity by engaging in policy discussion of any kind. Otherwise, see #30 and #31.
Prof Q,
If you say it has never been implemented then how can you attack it on the basis of corruption?
Also, we can argue pre-WW2 there was a liberal government and set of public policies.
Well, what a refreshing OP.
The obvious stated with humour.
And while I’m handing out praise what a neat and overdue comparison of 2 recent ‘scandals’ [the latter barely qualifies] by JohnL at #44.
RETURN TO SENDER
Repeat away John, but since I don’t have a favoured ideology – that seems to be more your kind of thing – your offer doesn’t interest me. What I am interested in is some rigour around these debates because, as I have pointed out previously, in pursuing these “nasty narrow-minded New Right neoliberal economic rationalists” (or whatever the label is today), you send some reputational external costs my way.
But back to this thread, you might like to return to the issue I raised above (#48)and defend your earlier argment in view of the apparant contradictions unearthed. Specifically, when the argument is about the merits of interventionist policies such as OzCar vis-a-vis a neoliberal alternative (theoretical or otherwise) of no such policies, how does pointing to people who engaged in the former policies, and by your assessment are very corrupt, should that the latter policies provide more scope for corruption?
Armagny Says:
This isn’t true. It’s just as wrong for employees of a private company to do this as it is for members of a government. See for example: CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW) – SECT 249B
Armagny Says:
No, again, this isn’t true.
We have plenty of examples of employees stealing from companies, where the companies take action against the employee. What we do have is a major problem with agency, where shareholders are not able to take action against the executives or the directors for diverting monies to themselves.
Theft is theft, regardless of Andrew Reynold’s attempted distinction between theft from compulsorily acquired government funds and voluntarily contributed shareholder funds.
Well Harry Clarke another example of Howard era corruption was the rural grants scheme. Even News Ltd reported on this:
“PRIME Minister John Howard’s re-election chances have been dealt a blow by a damning report which finds the regional grants program has been used for pork-barrelling in coalition electorates.
Just over a week out from polling day, and with a new poll showing little reduction in Labor’s lead, the coalition’s reputation for economic management has been called into question in a scathing report by Auditor-General Ian McPhee.” http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22765447-948,00.html
Other examples of utter filth are the deportation and internment of Australian citizens deemed to be illegal aliens, Bill Heffernan’s bizarre attack on Justice Kirby and the despicable Jackie Kelly fake election pamphlets scandal that was deliberately aimed at provoking ethic tensions.
Howard was a dirty dog and we should all thank God his own electorate booted him out of the kennel.
TerjeP
Of course the Liberals are corrupt. Although it does take a lot of experience to find the Liberals to be truly corrupt. But after
1 So called “truth overboard”,
2 missing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,
3 the Lindsay fake document,
4 the fake Liberal letters that led to the Ralph Willis affair 1996,
5 Senator Heffernan’s attack on Kirby,
6 South Australia’s Hamilton-Smith fake documents, and
7 Fake ALP website in ACT setup by Liberals.
You generally have to wake up and recognize the reliance on corruption for the Liberals.
You can also find right-wing corruption in the ALP
1) The infamous WA Inc (ALP Right)
2) Richardson’s Marshall Islands (ALP Right)
3) Ros Kelly’s distribution of sports grants (ALP Right)
4) Bashing of Peter Baldwin (ALP criminal Right).
You can also find corruption in right-wing trade unions.
I do not think an objective observer can come to any judgement that the Liberals represent high corruption, but they are not alone.
However when you get Rightwing corruption, combined with a Latham or Turnbull maniac ego, real threats to democracy can emerge.
I just hope Turnbull gets bumped off the stage asap.
Tom N, I’m lost by now as to what your point is. If you don’t, in general terms, support the policies that have been pursued in Australia for the last twenty-five years or so, what do you care what name I choose to give to them? And why are you upset when I point out that the governments that introduced them (and in particular the last one) had much lower standards of probity than their predecessors?
Perhaps if you could spell out your substantive concerns more clearly we could get away from this tiresome definitional stuff.
ProfQ,
The problem with your argument is that you make a broad-based attack on economic liberalism using the Liberal Party and previous Government as examples and then turn around and state that economic liberalism has never really been implemented in Australia. There are some logical fallacies with your argument.
You refuse to debate the liberalism vs interventionist issue. If we have a system that is abouting distributing money and largesse (interventionist) and a system that disagrees with it (liberalism) then there is far greater scope for corruption under the former rather than the latter system.
However you refuse even to debate that.
So not only do you fail to give an adequate definition of liberalism and neoliberalism but you even refuse to debate the substance of interventionist vs liberal methods of governing.
For goodness sakes SeanG PrQ gives a concise definition of economic liberalism that Don Arthur has accepted as reasonable.
“If we have a system that is abouting distributing money and largesse (interventionist) and a system that disagrees with it (liberalism) then there is far greater scope for corruption under the former rather than the latter system.”
That’s poppycock, Sean G. There is always scope for corruption when a service like public transport is tended out.
In the US we routinely see Republican and Democrat pollies slide into million dollar plus jobs with private firms that have done very well out of tendering, deregulation etc… Think Cheney and Halliburton for example.
[…] Quiggin published a post on ‘probity and economic liberalism’, arguments from which have appearing in the thread to this post of […]
Sean, Tom …this insistence on definitions that Prof Q has already given both of you numerous times is trite and diversionary..you have google and can form your own. The definition is well understood by most people in this discussion except by those who now want to blame the failings of neoliberalism on the fact that we didnt take all regulations away including those designed to protect well functioning markets. I know what you will say…markets dont need regulation to protect them. And maybe markets dont, but people do. They need protection from markets.
Alice,
Maybe you like to filter what I have written when you read it but I specificaly stated that economic liberalism which is about removing government’s economic power to distribute largesse has a lesser scope for corruption that your preferred model. Stop making this debate just about definitions and start debating the type of government or are you afraid that the corporatist model which you so laud will be shown to be prone more corruption than the liberal model that I believe in?
Alice,
History has shown that people need protection from their governments and that everyone makes up the marketplace.
melaleuca,
If you are tendering out a monopoly on public transport (or anything else) then of course you create scope for corruption. If, OTOH, the government simply steps out of the arena the scope is substantially lessened. This is not new or innovative – I was reading a biography of Elizabeth I and this point was made frequently to her about the monopolies she granted to her favourites.
While we, as a nation, keep doing this we will have to deal with the resulting corruption. The more we do it, the more we centralise the decision making power the more corruption. The less we do it and the more we trust the people to make their own decisions rather than relying on the government to make them for us the less corruption there will be.
Not tricky, but many seem to miss that.
Not even Prof. Q believes the OP. He can’t possibly.
The point being made by economic liberals is that government intervention provides an opportunity for corruption of a particular kind, namely the secret appropriation of public monies for private purposes that are inconsistent with accepted principles of good public policy (e.g. equal treatment, transparency, etc.) This position ought to be beyond criticism. The claim isn’t even close to controversial (Prof. Q himself alludes to examples). Therefore, the absence of government intervention means the absence of the opportunity for corruption of the abovementioned kind.
But here Prof. Q finds himself in a difficult position: clearly there will be situations in which the absence of government intervention will result in less corruption, if not abolishing it altogether (since of course there will still be scope for corruption involving purely private actors, for example garden variety secret commissions). This implies a benefit of economic liberalism, to which Prof. Q is opposed on ideological grounds. So, he has to find a way to muddy the waters. “A ha!”, he says. “I know some politicions who from time to time espoused economic liberalism. Every now and again they actually implemented it! And from time to time, those politicians were corrupt, or deceptive, or what have you. I’ll just mention the two together, ignore the precise point being made, and hey presto!”
Prof. Q’s final, comically transparent, attempt at misdirection is just icing on the cake: “In summary, the idea that economic liberalism goes with high standards of public probity doesn’t pass the laugh test.” Err… the point, Prof. Q, of which you are no doubt acutely aware, is that with economic liberalism, ‘public probity’ is neither here nor there, it being irrelevant to the outcome.
BBB
BBB, see #30 and #31
Where did I say otherwise?
ProQ,
If we ask which system is more prone to corruption, which one do you think?
A) Economic liberalism where the government has a minimal role to play in steering the economy.
B) Economic interventionism where government actively intervenes with subsidies, taxes and regulations.
Your choice, although you have conspicuously avoided making it thus far in this debate.
Sean
I dont agree that an economic interventionist style has a greater tendency to corruption as you and BBB suggest. After the spate of obviously corrupt practices recently emanating not from governments but from private firms (tedious to have to mention it but Madoff is the standout model and he wasnt alone and then of course the extremely creative financial derivatives, the enrons, the junk bond kings, the CDO pandoera boxes of nasty risky loans, the unregulated gambling of “apparently” sound financial institutions).
I also note in your post above you make only two choices available – the moral poles of a) and b) above. I would suggest there are many degrees of intervention as there are many degrees of economic liberalism between your “either/or…minimal/active” above from the point of view of reducing corruption. I would argue that by sheer dollar value of losses a) “minimal role for government” would demonstrate greater tendencies to corruption. How do you measure corruption if not by the dollar value of the damage done?. We could start with the GFC losses incurred by irresponsible deregulation and lack of regulatory oversight or the Long Term Capital Management crisis.
Sean – people need protection from fraud and greed in the private sector and as well they need protection from governments. There are entire questions concerning the degree of intervention you ignore. I do not find either pole terribly attractive and it seems pointless to argue that one extreme has a better record than the other in terms of reducing corruption. In fact the two extremes of a highly active interventionist approach and a highly uncontrolled economic liberal approach are likely to be the worst of all choices to reduce corruption.
The liberal extreme is likely to produce greater dollar value losses and the active interventionist approach likely to produce greater inhibitions and constraints on individual freedoms.
Andrew Reynolds, other than in cloud cuckoo land, the Government can’t entirely “step out of the arena” in a range of areas including public transport, prisons etc..
Also, America downsized its military and therefore needed to tender for services that many other armies would provide for themselves. This has led to significant scope for corruption as per Cheney and Halliburton.
The so-called “economic liberal” governments mentioned – Howard, Thatcher, Reagan etc., were never actually “economic liberal” governments, so we can’t judge “economic liberalism” on the basis of their records.
OK, I know this is the type of blanket excuse for failure worn out by its use with communism, but actually it is a valid point.
The New Right’s ideological pretence of “economic liberalism” was always a foil for a vulgar form of Marxism-in-reverse. It was never about the rollback of State intervention in the economy, but the redirection of State intervention toward serving the interests of the wealthy to the exclusion of the rest of society. Workchoices was just the extreme logical conclusion – using the powers of the State to criminalise the free association of working people.
The true believing “economic liberals” who supported the New Right based on some sort of “libertarian” belief system were nothing more than what Lenin would have called “useful idiots” in the Class War – people who believed the propaganda of the New Right vanguard because they confused the rollback of the social-democratic welfare system with the rollback of state intervention in the economy in general.
In a functioning democracy, I would have thought that the role of the government is at the very least to provide the spakfilla where markets fail to reach. That’s about as minimal as you can get and still be providing public benefit. However, people generally want a bit more: as an example, people like at least some insight into how our prisons operate, and they want to be reassured that there is some regulation as to what is tolerated/allowed and what is not.
Privatisation of prisons (which I am generally against, but that’s a discussion for another day) is a good example as to the kind of issue where an utterly unencumbered market would probably have poor social outcomes. That’s not to say that a government controlled and operated prison system is fantastic. My point is simply that some rules on treatment of prisoners, and on what is acceptable guard behaviour, are required – but with a non-interventionist government who will set them? And to what end? If the unencumbered market is operating, it is hard to see how such things as the treatment of prisoners come into it. If a prisoner is bashed to death by guards – just a hypothetical – in a private prison, what mechanism would an unencumbered marketplace provide so that i) the fact of death is notified; ii) the cause of death is determined; iii) a judgement is made as to whether the death was “acceptable” or “unacceptable”? I see none, but I’m happy to be put right on this.
Another point that Andrew Reynolds et al should consider is vote buying. Most folk accept this is a much bigger problem in America than nearly all other western democracies and a lot of it is about economic liberalism. Big pharma for example buys votes to ensure its huge profits are never threatened by socialized medicine, restrictions on advertising etc…
PrQ has clearly won this argument.
You don’t have to look very far to see the foolishness of the notion that less government is always better. Taking melaleuca’s reference to big pharma, for example, it would be shattering to think of all the unready chemicals that would be unleashed on the public unless there were government regulations. Closer to home, how would we get regulations to fence in swimming pools for young children without it being done by government agencies? The list of necessary regulations by governments is, thankfully, large. I agree that Professor Quiggin has won the argument.
Pr Q says:
On the subject of the relative probity of the ALP I have two words for Pr Q: Andrew Theophanous.
Oh and while we are at it, I have another two words on the cultural politics: indigenous self-determination.
And to seal the case I have the final two words that tie them together: Al Grassby.
Compared to that the L/NP’s serial crimes and misdemeanours look lame and inconsequential.
No doubt the last L/NP govt was as bad as Pr Q says it was. I dont think I have ever denied its sins. Although on occasion I have defended some of them as politically justified.
But the notion that the it is especially liable to moral outrages in comparison to the ALP is risible. Perhaps if one sticks to high-profile ministerial misdeeds a sharp man could tell the difference between the parties, to the detriment of the late L/NP. (Unaccountably Pr Q overlooks the worst transgression: Andrew Peacock as Boeing’s go-between on the F18 deal.)
But that myopic focus only comes at the expense of ignoring the seamy underside. And the base of the ALP ice-berg is where the real “action” occurs. Its whole mechanism of branch-stacked pre-selection, factional wheeler-dealing and political patronage is just inherently corrupt.
I speak with feeling, having lived in Sydney for better part of the nineties. And visited the NT on frequent occasions. I know at first hand what notionally Leftist political machine operators are capable of when given a free run of power.
Some* may attempt to place a fig leaf over the federal ALP’s operations by quarantining it from the state branches. This is a distinction without a difference. The latter had a massive influence on the former, particularly in the crucial NSW case. (As the Mates say, “if you arent in Sydney you are just camping”.) Michael Duffy gives us a taste of Labor in power:
And the moral case against the ALP hardly stops with its more traditional Tammany-Hall machine operation. Pr Q’s focuses on economic rip-offs whilst overlooking cultural atrocities. But there is no good reason to ignore the latter, excepting of course the usual unworthy ones such as political correctness or partisanship.*
In particular, the grotesque moral delinquency of the ALP, and its media-academia enablers*, in the area of cultural regulation stands out. Which, as any parent will tell you, has several orders of magnitude more effect on peoples lives than ministerial hanky-panky.
Over the past generation the pre-Rudd’s ALP’s lurid record in this area of either administratively unleashing, conveniently ignoring or being complicit in a variety of capital offences such as political assassinations, hate crimes, ministerial extortion, child rape, ethnic gangst-aism is difficult to beat. The main reason why the Howard L/NP is not in the bad odour with the public that Pr Q feels it deserves to be is because it went along way to cleaning up this disgraceful mess.
I have higher hopes for the current ALP, mainly because of the healthy influx of purer blood from QLD and VIC. But please, lets not indulge in partisan parlour games about the recent history of the parties. In the Baby Boom prime era it was more or less a case of a plague on all our houses.
PS Oh, I almost forgot the MC of the Mates: Richo. “What Richo? No way, he’s as pure as driven snow. M-a-a-a-t-e!!! ” [said in classic Golden Mile used car salesman accent, with plenty of glad-handing, back-slapping and eye-winking, emphasis back-loaded]
* I certainly dont intend to pepper Pr Q with these shot-gun blasts into a crowded room. He seems just too good-natured and trusting towards the True Believers to conceive of how bad the Mated-with & Mobbed-up Left can get when it holds the whip hand for any length of time.
Jack Strocchi, I think as a general rule state governments do tend to be more on the nose than federal governments. Since the Libs have lost 95% of state elections over the past decade it isn’t surprising that we have plenty of contemporaneous examples of dodgy Labor state governments.
Jack _ I wholeheartedly agree re Grassby. I dare say his mafioso drug trade is still going – such that the libs have been beficiaries of their donation largesse – hence my comment in another thread..nothing warrants outrage and shock anymore especially when you consider Howards “mates” in cosy positions and benefitting from his federal govt leadership… and NSW Labor’s “developer mates” state run leadership. What are we saying. I dont think academia protects labor anymore than it protects the coalition – as it should be. There is too much that is on the nose with both major parties….perhaps its time to vote to destabilise both of them (Oh and by the way I am mighty ticked off about the lack of changes to competition regulation, the sell down on workchoices, the environment and excessive private school funding, and dropping grocery watch…just in case you think Im giving fed labour a tick – however of the two my tick still goes to fed labor because the coalition wouldnt have corrected any of these things…paltry it may be and unhappy I may be but would I have Howard and the libs back? No way. That was the party of right wing lunacy.
Here’s a little test: if we abolished OzCar, would the opportunities for Rudd, Swan and government bureaucrats to enrich their car dealer mates increase or decrease (leaving aside, for the moment, the more basic questions of propriety that arise whenever a government chooses to intervene on behalf of a select group)? According to Prof. Q, it would seem, the answer is ‘neither’ or the latter. Why? “Err…. umm… look over there! John Howard was corrupt!”
Prof. Q, unless you are truly bereft of comprehension skills, #30 and #31 are obviously irrelevant to the point.
BBB
Oh and I agree re Richo as well…. Best buddy with Renee R. Up to his ears in offset alpine and Rene’s dirty dealings and somehow spends the next ten years being every up and comers in NSW labor.. “Uncle Rich” labor party adviser and general know it all ??
Ok, I’ll make it easy for you, Prof. Q. I will concede, happily so in fact, that there is no reason why a government that is ‘economically liberal’ (as you have defined that term) will, in its administration of the many government interventions that will inevitably survive its election, be naturally less prone to corruption than, say, a social democratic government. Now, can we talk about economically liberal policy and the ways in which it diminishes the opportunity for corruption by public officials?
BBB
Jack Strocchi – I have two words for you Robin Askin. You know, he was the Premier who recommended knighthoods depending on a game of cards. The point is that when there is a long period in office by either Labor or Liberal in NSW, the result has tended to be the same – looking after mates at the expense of the public.
Isn’t a large part of the problem that any party that’s been in power (state or federal) tends towards corruption eventually. Large corporates tend to see parliaments as the legislative arm of business (usually with a view to enacting laws that create a rent-seeking monopoly), so they’ll want to deal with whoever has the numbers. Usually, after a couple of election wins, whoever is on power starts looking impregnable, so business pretty much talks exclusively to them, funds campaigns, does deals on the post-politics lives of the incumbents, all the usual tricks. Funnily enough, no government is too serious about addressing this egregious, built-in form of corruption.
A few more words for Jack Strocchi – Henry Bolte in Victoria and Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland.
BBB, the problem with your approach is that it is an a priori argument for a conclusion which, as you’ve conceded is empirically wrong. Granting for the sake of argument that interventionist policies create more opportunities for corruption, we have to explain the observed fact that governments that adopt anti-interventionist free-market rhetoric have been more corrupt (in English-speaking countries over the last 50 years of so) than those that do not. A few possibilities
(i) as discussed above, policies like privatisation and contracting out create more opportunities for corruption than direct intervention
(ii) people who believe that governments are inherently corrupt (as indicated by the point at issue here) are more likely to participate in, or at least tolerate as inevitable, corruption when they are in office.
(iii) the “useful idiots” thesis set out above, that talk about economic liberalism is always just talk
I don’t believe (iii). While no political party or politician ever adheres perfectly to a stated ideology, the ideas that drove policies from the 1980s to the recent past were very different from those of the postwar decades, and the term “economic liberalism” is a reasonable description. So, I’ll go for some combination of (i) and (ii).
“The wrong sort of people are always in power because they would not be in power if they weren’t the wrong sort of people. ” (John Wynne-Tyson 1924 – ).
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (Lord Action 1834-1902).
“Men in great places are thrice servants: servants of the sovereign or state; servants of fame; and servants of business.” (Francis Bacon 1561-1626).
“Power corrupts but lack of power corrupts absolutely.” (Adlai Stevensonn 1900-1965)
“In the past , those who foolishly sought power by riding on the back of a tiger ended up inside.” (President John F Kennedy 1917 – 1963).
It seems that these experienced men didn’t need labels to determine that it isn’t parties or labelled schemes that cause corruption but the nature of politics.
JQ said: “i) as discussed above, policies like privatisation and contracting out create more opportunities for corruption than direct intervention”
NSW RailCorp has been keeping the ICAC very busy indeed with bribes and unethical conduct.It is wholly controlled and staffed by the NSW government. No privatisation there.
Given that corruption can occur in both neo-liberal and other systems there seems to be no necessary link between an economic system and ethical conduct.
The things that discourage or assist probity are more complicated than that. I suspect it is things like:
– acceptance and nurturing of the rule of law, with laws applied without fear or favor
– separation of courts from executive government
– widespread education, independent of economic standing
– reasonable distribution of wealth in the society
– the indoctrination of ethical behavior at a young age
Of course this is just a short and incomplete list. But I would think there are some interesting cultural and educational things going on that encourages ethical and moral behaviour in a society, independent of the economic system.
#3 jquiggin June 26th, 2009 at 10:46
Once again I am flattered that anyone thinks my opinion of the late L/NP govt is worthy of a second glance. But cripes, talk about flogging a dead horse, not to mention a one-time (2001) backer!
FTR, my correct views on everything*in relation to the political morality of the late govt are not very “interesting”, since not that different from the poser of that question. But, since Pr Q insists:
First, I am in no way invested in the support of the L/NP’s ideology or defence of “Honest John” Howard’s integrity. I supported his cultural authoritarian policies and “call-a-spade-a-spade” politics. Thats about it.
Second, I have never denied one single instance of the, sometimes extravagant, sins of the Howard-L/NP. FWIW if I am not the first I certainly the most insistent commenter to characterise Howard as Machiavellian. That adjective certainly implies he got dirty hands making his political living.
Third, I make a distinction bw lying, dodginess etc for political v personal gain. In relation to lying for political gain, I’ve gone out of my way to acknowledge his monumental deceits, from ””core-promises” + “Beazley’s Black Hole”‘, “Children Overboard”, “Iraq + WMDs”.
“Haneef” was not especially dishonest. More a understandable over-reaction, a little over-zealous prosecution combined with some typical bungling. I would put “Bali 9” in the same category. Better safe than sorry after Bali and 7/7.
SO I would rate Howard-ALP as the most politically dishonest federal govt in AUS’s post-war history.
Will that do?
Of course, being a Machiavellian, I believe that some of those political lies were justified. Especially in context of a political culture that is substantially depraved by political correctness.
Fourth, in relation to lying, dodgy-dealing etc for personal gain, Pr Q’s litany of the Howard-L/NP govts lies and dodgy dealings seems, if anything, charitably brief. Agreed that “AWB”, “Manildra”, “Wooldridge+RCAGP”, “Reith + tenix”, Phonegate, “Reith + balaclavas”, “Alston + Switkowski”, “Parer + family trust”, ‘Stan Howard'” were all pretty shabby, if not utterly deplorable.
I would add “Peacock + Boeing + F18” and “ABC Learning + Peacock + Anthony“, “”John “Mr 50%” Fahey’ + privatization” to that sordid roll call. So I will acknowledge that Howard-L/NP was the most venal govt in AUS’s post-war history.
Are you happy now?
Undoubtedly sometimes supporters of the Right should have, in all fairness, spent more time digging dirt on these matters. Then again, turning the tables, I have jumped up and down and yelled till I am blue in the face about grievous Right-liberal policy sins and blunders, on financial deregulation, work choices, climate change etc. I wonder how much time Pr Q has spent on criticising Left-liberal cultural atrocities?
I am “self-hating social-democrat“# so I make no apologies for focusing on the sins of “the institutionalised Left”. This well established Push has legions of slavish followers amongst the intellectual class. It can do without my “thin, small voice” in its amen corner for the time being. As Dr Knopfelmacher recalled, in a somewhat more serious situation, “one has to be harder on ones own side”.
* Apologies to L. Kolakowaski for this impertinent allusion.
# Acknowledgment to M. Kaus for this handy construction.
Re the problem of corruption in political parties. I still want one and a half votes. One for the party I want in power and the half vote goes to any individual I dont want to see in power in any party. There needs to be some mechanism to rid ourselves of the Grassbys, Richos, Askins, Bjelke Petersens, Boltes. We know who they are but we have no democratic way to oust them. They dont constitute a majority in the party but they do stick out like…
There has to be a legislative way that voters can exercise a clean out of corruption by cleaning out individuals even perceived in this way, if parties wont (because for example the corrupt politician brings in donations thick and fast from some vested interest groups).
Some lateral thinking on the election process wouldnt go astray here.
Boconnor says Railcorp is “NSW RailCorp has been keeping the ICAC very busy indeed with bribes and unethical conduct.It is wholly controlled and staffed by the NSW government. No privatisation there.”
Wrong Bill – work is tendered out to private subcontractors. We dont have the legions of post war migrants who came and got a low paid job working for the Governments State rail yards or the waterboard anymore. In those days the government did actually do its own digging and ran ot all. Bits werent tendered out to private subcontractors and here is the rub – thats where the corruption in railcorp mostly occurs. Purchasing depts, the dirty public servants who take kickbacks from private firms because they are wooed. They know they shouldnt but hey – ever seen a pharma firm in operation when it gets a new drug or piece of equipment it wants registered? Wine, dine, enchant poor bored public servants who possess tick power.
Its the misxing of public with private purpose that encourages corruption – either make state rail all public (govt does its own digging) or make it all private (potential for even greater expense refer Victoria).
But dont make it half and half…like the tragedy that is Railcorp.
@jack strocchi
Jack Strocchi – a pretty fine argument there…there are no real winners either side and I dont want the dangerous left or dangerous right….where does balance lie? Between yourself and Prof Qs views, it seems to me, I cant see much difference really except that you didnt mind Howards authoritarian approach (personally I couldnt stand it and found his “I know whats best for you people” approach tedious, like a belligerant bellicose school headmaster). But then you didnt support workchoices Jack and neither did I – I knew it would be mostly women who were turned into JH’s army of flexible workers and it was, seeing as they account for 70% of all part time workers, not to mention casuals. When my gender fares worse than yours under a political leader you will just have to excuse my disdain of John Howard.
Alice said: “Purchasing depts, the dirty public servants who take kickbacks from private firms because they are wooed. …. Its the misxing of public with private purpose that encourages corruption – either make state rail all public (govt does its own digging) or make it all private (potential for even greater expense refer Victoria). But dont make it half and half…like the tragedy that is Railcorp.”
Interesting points concerning those government agencies which use private contractors and salaried public servants. However I don’t think that goes to the core reason for corrupt behaviour or a lack of probity.
The ICAC and the Auditor General have both uncovered instances where public servants (with no sub-contracting issues) have behaved corruptly. Instances have been uncovered in housing, corrective services, juvenile justice and other areas of government.
It seems there are some common patterns. Where the agency is known for having strong unequal power between the clients of the agency and the staff of the agency then there is a greater possibility of corruption. So for example the clients of the juvenile justice system, or those of corrective services, or those of the police. This together with a lack of focus on performance seems to be a good breeding ground for corrupt or inappropriate behaviour. Those areas of government where managers are scared to address performance issues, or focus on media management rather than performance, seem also to be those areas that turn a blind eye to inappropriate behaviour.
I am not at all saying that corrupt behaviour does not occur in the private sector. What I am saying is that the environment that encourages corrupt behaviour cannot be determined solely by whether it’s in the private sector, or whether there has been privatisation of government services.
Inappropriate behaviour occurs as part of the culture in an organisation and how leaders respond (or indeed don’t act) to what they see and hear. And how they model good or bad behaviour to others.
PrQ,
I think the “observed fact” you are looking at is because you have narrowed your definition of corruption to only include certain types of abuse of power. If you only look at abuses that arrise from “government helps business” then there will possibly be more examples of the right helping business. Surely, though, that is not the only type out there.
For example, left wing governments have historically biased industry, tariff and subsidy policy towards certain industries where the union movement, their big donors, are powerful. To me, this is at least as corrupt as handing out regulated monopolies to favoured businesses, in that it advantages big donors to the clear loss of the rest of us.
There are plenty of other examples where governments have either made changes, or failed to act, where it favours a small but influential group to the clear detriment of the rest of us.
All power tends to corrupt – and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only real, long term way to reduce corruption is to decentralise power as far as possible – to the individual is the optimal level where possible.
If you want to reduce corruption the solution is simple – abandon the concept of a strong centralised government. It is just a pity you seem wedded to this idea and are content to blame any individuals concerned. Sure – the individuals can and should be castigated for behaving corruptly. Where guilty of criminal misbehaviour they should face the full penalty of law – but to imagine a system where people will not behave corruptly (whether they proudly wear a badge proclaiming “I am of Teh Left” or not) is just fanciful.
How about this then?
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22518
…left wing governments have historically biased industry, tariff and subsidy policy towards certain industries where the union movement, their big donors, are powerful.
Evidence ?????????????
In Australia governments have historically biased industry, tariff and subsidy policy towards farmers, miners, film corporations and banks.
I agree Chris. Andrew is completely wrong on that one. Especially miners – if you look at ABS stats on industry subsidies.
Bill OConnor – I take your point re leadership and probity in public institutions.
Sorry BOConnor
So the entire Australian car industry has never benefitted from tariffs? The clothing industry similarly? Governments never helped the steel industry? Shipping has never been protected by Navigation laws? We never had a duopoly program in the airline industry? Nonsence.
For a start, the mining industry and agriculture has been systematically impeded by the imposition of tariffs on their main import costs – machinery, processing inputs (ammonium nitrate for example) and just about everything else that goes into trying to do either successfully. The benefits of these tariff and subsidy programs accrued to the car, clothing, airlines and other favoured industries where (pure coincidentally of course) the union movement was strong. The losses hurt everyone else.
Some may not see this as corruption, but the effects were at the very least as bad as some of the examples above.
Andrew – you are so far out (wrong) it isnt funny. Per ABS
These are teh industries that are subsidised or pay no govt taxes.
Coal Oil and gas,Iron ores,Non-ferrous metal ores,Other mining, Services to mining, (mostly beneficiaries of subsidies) Community services, Government administration, Defence, Education, Health services, Forestry and logging (zero taxes less subsidies) Water transport,Insurance, Rail, pipeline and other transport, Gas supply, Other manufacturing, Iron and steel, Other non-metallic mineral products (pay small taxes relative to other industries).
Please gpo and look up table 5209.0.55.001 Australian National Accounts: Input-Output Tables – Electronic Publication 2004-05.
You speak nonsense. The coal industry is heavily subsidised compared to ALL others.
It HAS NOT been systematically impeded. Do you make this up? Mining and associated mining services is SUBSIDISED heavily in this country (relative to all industries).
Look it up.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5209.0.55.0012004-05%20Final?OpenDocument
Andy – thats it. You are getting a promotion to Godwin Grech’s soon to be old job for your creative responses.