This is a statement released yesterday and endorsed by a group of unions and individuals, including me. It calls for a progressive alternative economic policy. It’s a statement of principles rather than a program, and essentially a restatement of the social democratic position that represents the best of the Australian labor movement, free of both dogmatic leftism and the capitulation to market liberalism we’ve seen over the past thirty years or so.
A program developed on these principles would, I believe, be electorally popular if only we could get it before the public. But the policy elite, including journalists and the press, remain under the spell of market liberalism, despite its evident failures. So, our public debate will continue to be dominated by silly pointscoring about debt, deficits and the need for “reform”.
The full text is over the fold (the link goes to a properly formatted version)
Media Release
June 25, 2015
People’s movement needed to achieve
a progressive alternative economic agenda –
a secure prosperous and sustainable future for all Australians
A new grassroots movement is underway which should demonstrate to next month’s ALP National Conference that there is strong community support for a progressive change to Australia’s cosy consensus-at-the-top that ‘markets are best’.
Instead of a public debate about the real drivers of and dangers to our economic and social security and prosperity, the focus continues on ‘more of the same’ extreme fetish for a Budget surplus, smaller government, lower taxes and ever more privatisation and deregulation.
A People’s Economic Alternative is emerging to call on Australians to engage with each other to devise a new economic direction which can overcome the ever-widening inequality and ever-greater insecurity that mark the lives of more and more people, and meet the challenge of ecological sustainability at a time of accelerating and unmitigated climate change.
A People’s Economic Alternative is an initiative of trade unions, welfare, community and political organisations. These organisations have memberships totalling over 300,000 and this is the basis for a new grassroots initiative to change the debate over the next two to three years.
The global economic system, especially in Europe, continues to be marked by high unemployment, recession or very low growth, and harsh policies directed at the majority of working people rather than on the rich who refuse to sacrifice. Fundamental reforms to the way finance functions haven’t materialised, neither have changes in the dominant economic agenda of further de-regulation, privatisation, shrinking of the state and dilution of social contracts. Unlike the period following the Great Depression, it seems few countries have learned any lessons from the GFC. Eight years on, more financial shocks are to be expected, not fewer.
In response to the continued dominance of the neo-liberal agenda, the labour and broader social justice movements want to put forward a credible, well-defined, economic agenda as a progressive alternative.
A progressive agenda needs to take the latest thinking in economics and marry it to progressive Australian values and traditions. The labour movement, as the voice of workers, and the broader social justice community, has the capacity and social connections to lead such a great project.
A People’s Economic Alternative is trying to reverse a three decade’s long conventional wisdom about what constitutes good and credible economic policy.
We intend to build a nationwide campaign for a progressive political economic strategy. That involves a broader debate about how the economy and politics work to mainly benefit the rich and powerful, and what are the basic values that a progressive economy should serve – security, fairness and ecological sustainability. The economy should serve society, rather than the reverse.
To begin this process of challenge and change, the People’s Economic Alternative has proposed a set of values and principles that can underpin a new progressive economic agenda and a process for uniting the many dynamic parts of the labour and broader social justice movements.
For further comment, contact:
Andrew Dettmer AMWU 0419 899 345
Prof John Quiggin 0400747165
Fran Hayes f-collective 0419 416 061
Underpinning values
Equity; Fairness; Equality of opportunity; Recognition of the rights of future generations; Basic equality of outcomes, e.g. a living wage and dignified social support; Recognition of roles of both markets and government; Respect for science and education, e.g. economics is much more than a slogan like ‘markets rule’; People’s wellbeing is the ultimate objective, not profits.
10 Principles
Principle 1: Economic growth is not an end in itself, but is a means to better the lives of the Australian people, including future generations.
• The environment, mental and physical health, strong communities, security, art, freedom, and fairness matter as much if not more for wellbeing as growth in income and wealth.
Principle 2: Economic growth must lead to broad-based and inclusive economic development. No discrimination – all citizens have the right to participate fully in the society
• Growth must benefit all – women, the aged, youth, Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples, immigrant communities. Strengthen human rights laws and agencies.
Principle 3: Government benefits must be targeted to those in need, adequate to achieve their goals and not used as punishment.
• People have a right to sufficient welfare support or a living wage.
Principle 4: Good budget management is essential, but this means ensuring solvency, not a blind insistence on budget surpluses.
• A budget surplus is not the measure of good policy, which should aim to fulfil the government’s role in a solvent way. If you don’t need our money, give it back to us.
Principle 5: Fair regulation means that we all get a go. Good regulation recognises Principle 1: it is people’s welfare, not just economic growth, which matters.
• Reject the idea that regulation is a ‘bad’. Non-income drivers of wellbeing need strong regulation to support them.
Principle 6: Workers have a fundamental human right to organise, collectively bargain and take democratically-determined industrial action.
• Workers are people, not just units of production – an economy should work for people, not the other way around.
Principle 7: Provision of government services by an independent and impartial public service is an important responsibility of our elected government.
• We want a government that understands and does its job as best as possible, not one that doesn’t think it has a job.
Principle 8: Companies and high income earners must pay their fair share.
• Our tax system is skewed for high income earners – it needs to be re-balanced and made fairer.
Principle 9: We need a broad-based economy, and not one simply based on agriculture, resource extraction and the services sector.
• The government has a strategic industrial role to play, to ensure a diversified economy.
Principle 10: Trade is crucial, but it must be fair and in the national interest.
• Trade shouldn’t be used to place corporate interests above people’s interests.
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union National; Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union; Finance Sector Union National, Maritime Union of Australia Sydney Branch; Fire Brigade Employees Union NSW Branch; National Tertiary Education Union NSW Branch; ALP Socialist Left NSW; Greens NSW; SEARCH Foundation; Evatt Foundation; F-Collective; No Westconnex Community Action Groups; Migrante Australia; AFTINET; Australian Political Economy Movement; Immigrant Women’s Speakout; Asian Women at Work.
John Quiggin 
Great to see an alternative economic proposition. Hopefully it will start a debate and not be dismissed by the liberal quackery which predominates in today’s media.
The first part of principle 1 is unquestionable. The second part remains to be seen. Have you any empirical support, John, for the claim that economic growth, per se, is a means to a better life or are you just basing that on historical correlations?
@Sandwichman
What I mean is that vastly expanded consumption of fossil fuel may well have enabled both economic growth and improvements in the standards of living, at least in the wealthy countries. But that has been at the unaccounted cost of an immense concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Unless you can show that economic growth and improvements in living standards can continue with a radical reduction in the use of fossil fuels and consequent emissions, you are simply assuming that the past correlation between growth and better living (in the wealthy countries) implied a causal relation between growth and living standards.
I agree with the sentiments overall. I might cavil at details and re-word some stuff but that is not really important. I just wonder if there is any chance of the rank and file in the ALP or the people influencing the direction of the ALP party? Frankly, I don’t think there is much chance. I maintain my prediction that the ALP is un-reformable and essentially a party of neo-liberalism now, at least at the level of the Parliamentary wing.
The only way to effectively reject the neo-liberal policies of the LNP and ALP is not vote for them. Vote for the Greens. It really is that simple.
Needs a good edit.
A principle that reflects the notion that “housing is a basic right” is a desirable inclusion. Shelter and other organisations have articulated this principle. Housing should of course be safe, secure, affordable, accessible, well-located in relation to services and infrastructure (etc.). As a fundamental element of the economy, both as production and (necessary) consumption, housing deserves and cries out for separate recognition.
A similar argument could be made for including clear statements about the economic role of education.
I also take it that this agenda is to be pursued in the context of a (small ‘l’) liberal capitalism. The role of the state in such a system should be considered: the state should be strong (in the sense of having a self-confidence about the economic management tools available to it, and its capacity to wield those tools) and reflexive (in the sense that it can intelligently monitor economic conditions and know when to apply the tools and resources available to it, and when to be constrained). The state should also be strategic, as stated, and (for example) apply stimulus measures in activities that will generate employment and future revenue for the state to re-apply to a comprehensive program for supporting economic and social wellbeing.
A final comment is that an “alternative economic agenda” will also be an “alternative social and political agenda”. The two are somewhat mixed in this statement; they are of course inseparable, but the difference should also be acknowledged. The alternative economic program will not be achieved without a broad-based social and political movement.
In the long term? I really really hope so… but I doubt it. Not with the current party funding structures and sources. Not with the influence the Murdoch media has on the national debate. But… I suppose… the times, they are’a change’n so… who knows 🙂
I hope, John, this is the first step in your campaign to become the Independent member for the seat of Ryan.
Nothing overtly on trashing the world through overpopulation? A progressive economic agenda built on internalizing negative environmental externalities – yes to some extent. But does the current dominant paradigm of the Left go anywhere near over population Issues? No. Get some Conservation Biologists on your team to give this backbone.
Man, how many times have I seen theoretical economists (and the very good ones) looking at workers and unemployment and wages only as units and numbers and not a human matter. I am glad to be an empirical economist and thinking the same way as this manifesto.
Hi John,
I’m no fan of the crony capitalist system we have now, but this sounds like the old “from each according to their ability to be given to each according to their needs” mantra.
Over time and generations it weakens and destroys societies. It will destroy the very fabric of the society which currently shields the unwilling/unable from the harshness of the world. At its root, its driven by the psychology of envy resulting in actions aimed at taking down the successful rather than personally striving for what you want. It’s also profoundly cowardly and evil because you won’t even go after the successful ones yourself, you’ll hide behind the skirts of government and seek to have others do the dirty work for you. You need to get over your deep seated feelings of inferiority, because that is driving your envy. Instead, leave other people alone. Figure out what makes you happy and go after it.
By the way, thanks for having me on this blog. I’m really enjoying it.
The document indicates how seriously its sponsors, authors and supporters take carbon emissions to be.
Fails at 1st hurdle – calling it “alternative” economic policy. Redolent of late 70s/early80s “alternative” economic strategy. Branding as ‘alternative’ is feeble and invites dismissal Thatcher had it right – “there is no alternative”.
To make a positive contribution : call it New Economic Strategy or Modern Economic Strategy.
While I agree with the overall aim, I doubt this will make much headway. Why not?
1. The ALP Caucus will not implement it. The same Caucus that will not support a Royal Commission into an obviously corrupt financial system will not engage in the kind of movement building and challenging of business interests that implementing this agenda will require. This is not simply a matter of argument and evidence. Many (most?) ALP MPs do not agree that this kind of agenda is either practical or desirable. Many support ‘free trade’ and an economy in which effective trade unionism has been largely demobilised and marginalised.
2. There is no evidence that there is a social and political movement of sufficient size, organisation and cohesion that would make this agenda practical from an electoral perspective. Approx. 40 per cent of union members vote for the Coalition. Are they going to engage in the kind of movement building necessary to place sufficient pressure on a future Labor government to implement this agenda? I doubt it.
A practical alternative economic agenda can only arise on the basis of the active involvement of social forces with the political weight and organisation needed to enforce change. Those forces do not currently exist. That is why the ALP Caucus is comfortable with most aspects of neoliberal policy and why it can ignore this agenda and still win the next election.
This agenda does raise an important question:
Is the ‘policy-implementing wing’ of the ALP (not Conference, not the members, but those groups in around the Federal MPs who actually decide what to do when in govt) likely to implement this agenda?
If the answer is ‘no’, then what needs to change inside and outside the ALP to make it more likely that it will? That’s where this discussion needs to start.
Would campaigning for better monetary policy be the best way to help working people?
@rational liberal
1) Have you ever read anything that wasn’t written by Ayn Rand? If we wanted to read a rehash of John Galt’s speech, there are places for that already.
2) Have you considered taking your own advice, and going and doing something useful instead of trying to make yourself happy by trolling?
@rational liberal
I’m going to suggest that you interrogate your claims here, which seem to have no foundation.
Putting aside that PrQ is clearly not proposing anything like “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs” (even commun|sts don’t advocate that until material abundance is approached and therewith the beginnings of the dissolution of class society on a world scale is achieved) …
Your claim that
can point to no exemplar. It has never been done in a society approaching abundance.
Your claim that
is again simply a wave of that hand — an attempt to pathologise something, again without any plausible research base — which is far more easily explained by the longstanding history of community. Collaboration requires a degree of empathy, and with empathy comes both solidarity, a desire to be part of something larger than oneself, to be affirmed by people recognised as peers and so forth.
You also assume, uncritically, that ‘the successful’ are marked by wealth and privilege (with the implication that those not so marked are failures). This is a kind of secular neo-Calvinism (God would not allow the evil to be rich, ergo, being rich is its own ethical badge of virtue). Clearly the vast majority of the world, on this view are contemptible and deserve to be oppressed and explotied, on the grounds that they are inferior. Why ‘crony capitalism’ would be wrong in this paradigm is hard to say.
Again, this is specious — a kind of piling Pelion upon Ossa error, where you assume your categories are beyond demur and then build new levels upon them — if the state is an instrument of authentic community its work is not ‘dirty’ and calling upon its agency not ‘cowardly’ or ‘evil’. Indeed, it’s precisely because society ought not to be a free-for-all for those passionate about one thing or another that the state, assuming it really is an instantiation of authentic community — is the most appropriate vehicle for ensuring that the burdens and benefits of socially necessary labour are equitably settled.
I don’t know enough about you to guess why you have reiterated right wing libertarian paradigm complete with pop psychology, but it’s a tawdry contribution on a blog like this.
> I’m going to suggest that you interrogate your claims here, which seem to have no foundation.
He be cra~yzee.
“A budget surplus is not the measure of good policy, which should aim to fulfil the government’s role in a solvent way. If you don’t need our money, give it back to us.”
While I agree with the sentiment to me that wording is problematic. I’m no economist but isn’t the goal counter-cyclical economic management? i.e. surpluses in the good times and deficits in the bad. I realise that generally the right only believes in surpluses all the time but that doesn’t mean we should humour them.
Great initiative and its especially pleasing to have someone of your caliber and reputation on board with it John.
You lend the initiative a degree of credibility and legitimacy that’s hard for opponents to brush off.
As wise men have said; first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they argue and finally they accept you. I suspect (and hope) we’re leaving the ignoring phase!
I think that is a good initiative and clearly it is a kick of which requires work.
I would say though that in order to get broad acceptance some things must be given up.
A new start must start anew for today,
so it should reflect that we live in a 24 hour 7 day world and sllow people to create employment agreements and working arrangements to facilitate this.
It should understand that we live in a country where everything is “owned” and it is essentially illegal to have nothing, so homelessness should not be possible. The State has a responsibility to ensure basic accommodation and sustenance or the means to earn this.
It should recognise the unique nature of aboriginal culture and adjust fore that.
I don’t believe that I saw the word “sustainable” in there anywhere. A new start should aspire towards sustainability at an achieveable rate.
A new start should reject domination of mass media, marketing, resources, entertainment, sport, financial structures, etc, by single interests or ideologies.
Good. I agree with Peter Chapman that something about housing as a right would be good. I’ve met and spoken with a number of the homeless people in and around where I live, and one thing is pretty obvious: a number of them have mental health issues that dog their lives, which is part of the reason they are homeless, and homelessness only serves to create yet more mental distress, quite a vicious circle. In such a prosperous society as Australia, it seems crazy that we can’t find a way of giving a home—which provides stability—for these people.
Good luck with getting some media attention, given the frenzied attack upon the ABC (again), Bill Shorten’s woes with the commission, and cat videos.
@rational liberal
You’re enjoying yourself on this blog? Why? Do you have difficulty finding an audience when you want to spout rubbish?
I’ve read that reddit is supposed to be good for that, although I’ve never checked it out myself.
@Historyintime
I agree with the naming proposals. Perhaps even ‘Twenty-First Century Economic Strategy’.
Judging by the conditions the Troika are trying to impose on Syriza and Greece, this approach would be a source of great mirth for the likes of Merkel, Blanchard and Lagarde. Time will tell how long it takes and in what form before the black death reaches Australia also, given the sort of government we have and the deals they are signing behind or backs
@rational liberal
you wrote “the old “from each according to their ability to be given to each according to their needs” mantra””
I understood that the saying went like this; “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”,
That saying is far older than Marx and it is the only maxim or value on which to base any system that has to take human nature into account. This saying is actually quite brilliant.
Who is this rational liberal dude? Could it be poor old Rafe?
@Fran Barlow
I wonder if rational liberal’s nickname is intentionally a double-barrel irony? 😉
@Ikonoclast
Actually Scientologists, Randites and Mormons all think of themselves as being “rational”.
Liberal is the same as Tony Abbott, Maggie Thatcher and Sarah Palin.
Is this a case of “their poison is bad for you, try ours”? It would take a lot more than this to get to sound policy, let alone policy that people would favour.
Preliminary comment.
On first reading, there is nothing in the draft document I could find, which is outside contemporary (post 1950) economics, this includes the major developments in general equilibrium theory about which I wrote every so often.
Why not call it The Economic Agenda?
I agree with those who question the term ‘alternative’; it implies what we have is an economic agenda, which is not obvious to me. You, JQ, have discussed the notion of ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’. My preference is to leave politics out as much as possible.
@Ivor
small “l” liberal is something quite different from Tony Abbott, Maggie Thatcher and Sarah Palin.
For God’s sake, why didn’t you tell us that that link went to a PDF file, or at the very least tell us how big it was? I had to kill it in case it killed my system by being too big.
@P.M.Lawrence Are you surfing the web on a ZX-80? The PDF is two pages.
I don’t like the wording in Principle 4.
“If you don’t need our money, give it back to us.”
That is a red rag to a Libertarian.
I notice it only appears in the pdf version, not in the version above.
No wait, it is there in both versions.
Instead of the conservative slogan, “Economic growth is a means to better the lives of the Australian people, including future generations…” a people’s movement should inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the growth imperative!”
Principle 3 is badly crafted. What does it mean to say that benefits “should not be used as punishment?” Perhaps “should not be used as the carrot in a scheme of rewards and punishments”.
” … is badly drafted”
@Ernestine Gross Or perhaps “A Conservative Economic Agenda”.
This should cut the ground from so called Liberals while appealing to the retro voters.
@Sandwichman
How about;
“Endless growth is the slogan of cancer.”
@Ikonoclast
The following reply went into moderation, I suppose because it contained a link. Here it is again without the link.
rational liberal ;- There is a limit to your theory. How much can you have before others will have no choice but to take it from you ,what happens then? Libertarians always respect violence so this point makes sense to them.
James W ;- i think principle 3 refers to how less well off (deserving) welfare recipients are made to feel like evildoers .Well off recipients don’t suffer this fate.
Since I am a dreamer * I would like to include (non-human) animal rights in principle 2 .Just as the concept of human rights has gradually been extended over the years from a very small origin to cover most kinds of humans (at least in the minds of Western educated folk it has) it should also eventually cover most other animals.
* Principle 1 could also mention that while we pursue economic growth we should recognise that it doesn’t affect happiness levels much after the basics of life are taken care of ,we had the physical means to achieve this for everyone in the world decades ago, and that there may eventually be limits to growth anyway.
sunshine, I think rl is very much aware of and worried about that limit to the theory and that is why these freedom loving people he seems to be supporting are so happy to let the neo-conservatives trash so many of our ‘freedoms’.
Look how they stand by and support this current build up of the forces of authority and repression.
This build up may seemed irrationally aimed at the Muslims; you know how they are taking our way of life away, but it will come in handy to protect property from those others who just may be plotting to take away their privileged way of life.
Oh they loves their stuff; it is how they define themselves; propertarians have nothing else do they?
But the ordinary person who is as rl worries, envious of the rich. Envy is one of the deadly sins that Dante identified but rl with his narrow minded ideology and fear of losing his stuff and his priviliges can’t see that both Christianity and Buddhism offer positive ways for people rich and poor to deal with that emotion.
Over the past decades ordinary people have been persuaded to turn that natural and very human emotion – envy – onto those who have even less than they do, rather than rationally look at those who have more and wonder; do they really deserve their wealth? What did they really do for freedom during the aspirational decades?
Personally I think that buddhism is a far better ideology than christianity; it is the most rational ideology I have found. Buddhism provides a rational way of reasoning about desire and methods for the reduction of these irrational emotions that drive human reasoning and behaviour.
But really rl is worried about the destruction of civilization because he can only visualise one version of civilization. I wonder if he understands the concept of creative destruction?
Hi John,
Is the PDF version the final edit? As I read, I found myself itching to make changes. The language could be simplified a lot. The title has already been dissected by others but here is my take: the first part needs to be shorted to three words, something like ‘A Progressive Economic Agenda’ or ‘A Movement for a Progressive Economy’ or other wording. Loose the word ‘Peoples’, I agree with the sentiment behind it but it turns too many people off. The second part of the title should start: ‘Creating a secure, prosperous…’.
Would like to say more but no time right now.
Cheers,
Cam
I like it a lot. We desperately need a set of guiding principles that are easily understood, and easy to apply against the neo-liberal agenda of grasping, short term greed.
Ho hum, more slaying of straw economic men. The use of the term ‘Neo-liberal’ gives the lack of rigour on this statement sway. These creatures apparantly believe that economic growth is an end on itself, but that’s strange because, in all my years in and around policy circles, I’ve never meet anyone who thought that. Another air swing comes when the statement insists that regulation is not always bad, as if the mainstream view, or perhaps at least the view of these imagined Neo-liberals, is that it is. Again, from all my years in policy, including time in regulation review, I have NEVER come across such a view.
Test??
Weird. Is “ICH” on some kind of absolute ban here? When I attempted to link my comment didn’t just go to eternal moderation, it vanished entirely.
Anyway…
Watch that video, it’s from CBS 1960, Ed Murrow. Very telling to hear so many of the same neo-con/neo-lib talking point hacked out again and again more than 50 years ago.
The union doesn’t come out of it too well either.
PS: The quote that sums it up was: “We used to own our slaves, now we just rent them”.