I
realise that the last few posts have tested the patience of my readers. But the
last one (however tortuous its construction) was actually quite important in
its conclusion that the 5-6 academic disciplines we have come to rely on to make
sense of the world have made a pig’s breakfast of the job when it comes to the
issue of the role of the State in
the contemporary world
Libertarian
and anarchistic readers, I grant you, are not interested in questions such
as the shape, strength, role or future of the State – they just want to get it
off their backs.
But most of us still look
to government for various types of protection – if not for things such as
health and the education of our children.
And
this is a blog of someone who, a bit like Candide, has been trying to
understand the role of government (and the shape and meaning of the State) for
some 50 years – as a thoroughly practical question – admittedly well-versed in what
was initially the small body literature on “public administration” which, after
the 1990s, became a tsunami about
“public management”.
But
trying to have a conversation about this not so much with academics as with
real people – whether officials, political colleagues or, latterly,
beneficiaries in eastern European countries…..
It’s in that open and
inquiring spirit that I draft this post for those who actually want to explore
the question “How can the State realistically perform better for the average
citizen?”
28
years ago, after all, “the State” imploded in central Europe – and the key question people were actually asking
in those countries then was the shape it needed to take for its new function
under capitalism….. Noone had been prepared for this moment – what little discussion
had taken place about reshaping core institutions of the state in the 70s and
80s were academic and had actually been the other way around – about how the
transition from capitalism to socialism would be managed! Not that this deterred
tens of thousands of advisers from descending on central European capitals in
the early 90s and dispensing their advice (full disclosure - I was one of them!)
We
basically could be divided into two groups – the “missionaries” whose mission
was to sell the snake-oil of privatisation and the idea of “the minimal state”;
and the “mercenaries” who focused rather on the mechanics of building up the
new institutions required of a “liberal democracy” (see my paper Missionaries and mercenaries).
More to the
point, in 1999 I wrote a book which was effectively a calling card for the
officials with whom I would be working in Central Asian until
2007 - In Transit – notes on good
governance
(1999) I find it stands up pretty well to the test of time….….
Twenty
years later, it’s not unreasonable to ask
how that debate panned out – not just in central Europe -a full 10 of these
years have been years of austerity for people in Western Europe whose
governments engaged in major cutbacks of state programmes and activities; have
increasingly divested themselves of responsibilities (in favour of the private
sector) – and/or automated their activities in various forms of E-government….
Let’s
take 1997 as a starting point – this was the year when the World Bank published
The State in a Changing
World - a
more measured discussion of what the state was good for than had been possible
under the full-scale Washington Consensus of the previous decade…..
-
That report looked at the contrast between the
scope of state activities and their
effectiveness (or results). It argued that states needed to
concentrate on those activities which only they can carry out – it called this
the “capabilities” approach…….
-
That, of course, is a very technical approach. It says nothing about intentions
– ie the extent to which those “in charge” are seriously interested in the
pursuit of “the public good”….
- But lots
of analysts will tell us that such a pursuit is doomed to failure – Rabbie
Burns put it well when he wrote “The best-laid plans o’ men gang aft a-glay” -
best translated as “life is one long F***Up” !!
One of my
favourite writers - AO Hirschmann – actually devoted a book (”The Rhetoric of
Reaction”) to examining three arguments conservative writers use for dismissing
the hopes of social reformers:
- the perversity thesis holds that any
purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic
order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.
- The futility thesis argues that
attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply
fail to “make a dent.”
- the jeopardy thesis argues that the
cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some
previous, precious accomplishment.
And indeed…..we ignore
these arguments at our peril….Social reformers all too often allow their hopes
to masquerade as serious arguments….
Most
of us (at least of my generation) would like to return to the days, if not of
trains running on time, of what we saw as trustworthy (if not totally reliable)
state services….We have become aware of the illusion and downright perversity
of the talk of “choice”.
Sadly, however, Pandora’s
box can’t be closed or – as a friend and colleague used to put it “We are where
we are”……
-
IT, social media and surveillance are hard
(and ever more developing) realities…..
-
Public debt has soared simply because governments considered that banks were
too big to fail and “socialised” their losses
-
demographic and economic (let alone technological) trends put even more strain
on public budgets
Of course, each country
has been and remains very different in public expectations of the State.
-
The public in Northern European
countries still trust the State and its various custodians and public servants
– although the “third sector” has always been important in countries such as
Germany (eg health insurance).
-
Southern European countries such as
Italy are completely different – with family and informal networks being the
dominant influence. Spain still has a residue of an anarchist streak –
particularly in the Basque and Catalonia regions – and therefore a strong
cooperative sector.
-
Central and Eastern European
countries suffer from the worst of all worlds – with public services such as
education and health chronically underfunded and the private sector taking up
the slack for all but the poorest groups; and no cooperative or voluntary
sector worth talking about. Even the church in Romania is funded by taxation!!
It
was a single book last year – Dismembered;
how the attack on the state harms us all – which started me off on a series
of posts which led to my little E-book on the subject “Reforming the State”.
Noone really likes the state – it is an easy butt of jokes and has an
increasingly malevolent side in the surveillance state.
But it cannot be left
simply to subside….Either it has an important function – which would need to be
properly articulated for these times and supported.
Or it has passed its
sell-by date – in which case we need to take more seriously the various mutual
or P2P alternatives which are mooted from time to time….
Recommended Reading about
“the State”
- The
State – past, present future
Bob
Jessop 2016 This is the classic text on the subject from the go-to expert
- The
State - theories and issues; ed Hay, Lister and Marsh (2006). From a first skim, would strongly recommend it
- The Modern State; Christopher Pierson (1996); - despite its age - is one book I would recommend since, unlike most books with such titles, it is actually readable - if a bit
- Government at a Glance
2017; A
recent and very handy analysis of the scope and impact of public services. Only
for the 35 member states of OECD (so the Baltic States, Czechia, Hungary,
Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia are included – but not Bulgaria or Romania)
-
Those who want a more detailed historical treatment can now dip into Francis
Fukuyama’s marvellous 2 volumes which
he introduces here. I never imagined that 700 page books with titles such as The Origins of Political
Order – from prehuman times to the French Revolution (2011); and Political
Order and Political Decay – from the industrial revolution to the Globalisation
of Democracy (2014) could be so engrossing....
- Governance for Health (2012 WHO) A good
overview of health indicators and coverage (if that's what turns you on)
-
Governance in the 21st
century (2001 OECD) An interesting - if rather geeky - discussion of
trends
- The State in a Changing
World
(World Bank 1997) – the report that indicated the powerful World Bank had had
to eat some its scathing words about the role of the state. Goes on a bit!
-
The
Retreat of the State; Susan Strange (1996) Susan Strange was one of the
founders of International Political Economy – and, for me, talked the most sense
about the contours of the modern state – identifying, for example, the
importance of multi-national companies (including the global consultancies; the
Mafia; and the technocrats of global institutions), She also authored Casino
Capitalism (1986); States and Markets (1988) and, her last book, Mad Money
(1998)
-
The
Sources of social power – vol I history from the beginning to 1760AD; Michael
Mann (1986)
The
first of what turned out to be a 4 volume study, reminding us that “the State”
is a modern construct and only one of four types of power (political) – the
other three being ideological, military and economic. Not an easy read...
- The Sociology of the State; Bertrand Badie and
Pierre Birnbaum (1983). A good non-Anglo-saxon view of the subject 
No comments:
Post a Comment