This topic is probably a bit more esoteric than the previous one, but just as important.
An argument can be made that, ever since the decline in confidence in traditional Keynesian macroeconomic management from the 1970s and the demise of a socialist alternative to capitalism as even a long-term goal for the mainstream left, the progressive movement has lacked for both a long-term project (‘what kind of society are we trying to get to?’) and a convincing theoretical underpinning.
Whatever their shortcomings, the conservative movement’s arguments for the primacy of the market – based on neoclassical economics – are precise, elaborately worked through and often seductively elegant.
There have been many good progressive critiques of these theories, but positive theoretical arguments for the desirability and efficacy of non-market action have often lacked robustness, or been too timid or ad hoc.
This hasn’t prevented the growth of a strong popular anti-globalisation movement – but what alternative development path do they propose?
Nor has it prevented progressive governments from winning power in various countries and often achieving important advances in particular areas. But basis of that action has often relied either of ‘just do it’ instructions to a public service whose theoretical DNA is still encoded with neoclassical thinking, or somewhat precarious and limited arguments such as ‘market failure’.
As I have previously argued, the financial crisis of 2007-08 has shaken (but not broken) confidence in the claims about the infallibility of markets. This seems a good time for Policy Progress to survey existing and emerging theoretical alternatives, to try to set out a clear theoretical basis for action by the next progressive government.
The intended approach is set out on our Work Programme page, as follows:
This topic would look at the theoretical underpinnings for the progressive critique of the free-market right, and for its alternative policy programme. How robust, well-grounded and logically consistent are they?
To what extent have the theoretical arguments used by progressives changed over the last few decades, and to what effect?
And what new theoretical insights are being developed today by a new generation of thinkers, perhaps influenced by the lessons from the financial crisis of 2007-08?
As this last question in particular suggests, the point is not that I hope to be able to singlehandedly develop a new rationale for progressive action. Rather, I believe that there’s enough intellectual ferment out there that I will be able to tap into some pretty fresh and exciting ideas in this area.
What do you think? Does this sound like an interesting, achievable and worthwhile topic for the work programme?
Tags: economic theory, public policy, theory
I am disappointed – I _was_ hoping for the singlehandedly developed new rationale for progressive action but i guess I will have to settle for some fresh, exciting, fermented intellect instead!
I too am disappointed, I was hoping you’d solve the problems of the world with one single swipe of a mighty progressive hand! Be that as it may, I think this is getting close to the bone. We progressives are quick to shout the sky is falling, and sometimes it has been… but the village won’t pay attention to us when we say “The Sky is falling – Someone should fix it” – Who they ask? “Not me, for I am busy with my knitting”, says one progressive movement, “Not I, for I am busy mending my fences” says another. And, in the end all we are left with is another sad winter.
I would like to see anything that brings together the wides of ideas from across the progressive horizon. I’d also be interested, as part of this, to understand some of why progressives are so unable to articulate alternative theories that are more than what is typically named class envy… is that safe harbour?
David,
We’ve shared thougths by email, so I know you know (etc…) that this is the heart of the issue for me.
And I think it’s not actually as hard as you make out. Where i think we fail at the moment is in pulling together what are currenty seen as disperate streams of thought, and action.
This project, for me anyway, is about restating truths, and rejecting in places past compromises and complacencies. This in turn should lay the foundation for incremental (at times) and radical (at other times) action.
I come at things from a social contract point of view – so what social contract are we offering? what do people get when they vote progressive (and I’m not thinking Jim A
).
In part it’s the “Vision Thing”, some of us complained about a lack of in the 5th Labour government. I think a lot of that criticism was misplaced – but it isn’t now.
And I’ve forwarded you some of these thoughts already – perhaps I can have my arm twisted over that guest post…
Touché, Achela and Kaine! I guess that probably WAS self-evident, but didn’t want people to think that I thought I was about to produce the General Theory for the 21st century . . .
I don’t necessarily disagree with about bringing together a range of ideas, Kaine, but I think the hard part is probably making that work as a coherent framework.
I’m reassured by your confidence, James – hope you’re right! Re social contract, though, the focus I’m intending for this topic is more on the ‘how’ than the ‘what’. I talked in the main post about the lack of both a long-term project and a convincing theoretical underpinning, but it’s the latter rather than the former that I was aiming to tackle. Happy to hear arguments in favour of other approaches, though. (PS consider your arm twisted!)
Ah, then I think we are on the same page David as I am also keen to see what we can create that would bring some of these ideas together because for me this potentially unravels the mystery of the lack of an articulated progressive theory. I agree that the framework is the hard part… but it’s the part most needed? I think so and I think to some extent this too is where James was beginning to talk about the pulling together of disparate streams of thought.
I think there’s also something in this Social Contract approach… but I fear it would be seen as further evidence of the progressive concession to right revisionism… the stuff we were talking about in relation to the Amsterdam Process, something about which I actually disagree by the way but the debate is there… that the Social Contract is always argued down. I think this is perhaps where my thoughts lay on the Economic Analysis of the 5th Labour Government and where the view of the world was to bargain a position?
I’m responding to James here… perhaps I shouldn’t? But I think there is value in asking the question about vision and this will come through in the Fiscal Legacy stuff maybe that perhaps the transformative agenda, as I believe it was, was strangled – and I have my views by what – and then, it would be interesting to see whether this is a commonality across progressive governments with a transformation mandate? Am I off topic David? Sorry…
David,
It’s all good. I think (not all clear to me) I’m trying to say that the ‘how’ the ‘what’ and indeed the ‘why’ can’t be as easily seperated as we’ve clearly (through our actions) thought they could be in the past. They’re dynamically linked, if you will.
Anyway David, I’m confident this work programme will be heading in the right general direction (two thumbs up from me).
Kaine – all I’m saying in terms of social contract theory is really just derived from notions of consent. Given that I don’t derive the right to govern (or human rights in general) from ‘god’ or any other party external to society, I tend to the classical republican view (Rousseau and Rawls are good starting points) that governing implicitly involves a social contract . This isn’t (as I read in the Amsterdam process) window dressing or marketing – this is being clear with ourselves and everyone else what the fundamentals of progressive politics are.
I’m _not_ arguing in favour of a contract with voters e.g. pledge cards or explicit commitments per se, as an election tool, I’m well before that point at the theoretical compact to build the shining city on the hill.
ah, my language being unclear I failed to demonstrate that I was actually agreeing with you there James. I see the value in the social contract too… I just worry that progressive parties always have to negotiate back from their intention you know? Like, there is a failure to stand by the terms of the deal for fear of the revisionism that inevitably comes to critique from that perspective that, as you say… “We (the Right), ordained and mighty, at our behest, seek your terms to be made more rational”… so I struggle with the Social Contract view because progressives seem to lack the metal to stick to their end?? or no?? thoughts?
And you know you win me over when you quote Mario Cuomo my friend.
Gotcha Kaine – yeah I agree with you.
Pragmatism has it’s place but we are far too quick to jump to the beat of Bismark (Politics is the art of the possible) than to remember that for progressives there must be a strong backbone within us holding us to the belief that fundamentally politics is the art of making the impossible possible.
And I’m glad to see the Cuomo was well received.
As intimidated as I am amongst such strong levels of discussion, in my opinion the social contract (if I’m right to take that to mean the agreed relationship of the individual to society and thereby the state) is a good basis to work off for two different reasons.
Firstly, to me it seems to be a key point of difference between the progressive view and the right’s view. It seems to me that the right looks at individuals in society only as they are at that time, where as a more progressive stance is to look at individuals as they will be across their life times. The clearest example of this is the right instinctively sees someone on a benefit as a social drain, and therefore to be punished, where as in a longer progressive view is that individual will move from the benefit and become a tax payer citizen, then parent/mentor to other citizens, so a bit of support for some of that time is a small price to pay.
Secondly, it isn’t a difficult concept. To the progressive, a citizen is a net gain to society, worthy of investment, an investment that will be paid back over time. And that investment is tied to the concept of fairness, ‘everyone getting a fair go’*.
If the progressive policies are going to advance, they need be based on starting concepts that are instinctive enough to be explainable in a sentence or two. This is one of them.
*I find that people politically to the right of me have trouble arguing this point if I use John ‘State house’ Key as an example.
Sean said: “If the progressive policies are going to advance, they need be based on starting concepts that are instinctive enough to be explainable in a sentence or two. This is one of them.”
You need not say this… “As intimidated as I am amongst such strong levels of discussion” when you say what you did above. You’re right. I think this is part of what we struggle with as progressives Sean. We find the need to explain ourselves and this is kinda where I was before… on the Social Contract, progressives are always in the position of negotiating because there is a fear of not being able to justify their position. This I guess is a messaging thing we all find ourselves guilty of tapping into… and some of what we were saying about the Amsterdam Process, that the apologists amongst us will be quick to say ” I told you so”.
You made a good point though Sean. Don’t be intimidated, James get’s all flash with his Cuomo quotes and the rest of us use difficult sentence structure so we can have a bite either way!! lol. By the way James… Best. Speech. EVVVVAH!
Thanks Kaine. I have to confess I needed to look up who Mario Cuomo is.
Looking forward to where the Moose leds on this issue. Another basic building block issue.
Mario Cuomo – DNC 1984 – “Shining City on a Hill” Speech to the Democartic National Congress… worth every minute of the 30 minutes or so you can get on You Tube. Watch this… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdIqKsv624
Smile my friend, there is hope.
I ponder this one a lot and I’ve got a million opinions that I could bore you with at length, but I’ll try to restrict myself to three random thoughts:
- Keynesianism was predicated to a fair extent on access to cheap natural resources in less wealthy countries (and associated environmental despoilage) – and this access was often maintained through military conflict.
- Keynesianism was also upheld to quite a degree on the breadwinner/housewife model. Wages were high (and kept that way by various interventionist measures), but goods from the formal economy were supplemented by women’s unpaid labour in the home to a greater extent than today. The goods we consumed were more durable – eg, clothes and shoes that were worn by all five kids in my family. Today, women’s workforce participation means there’s less time to do labour-intensive unpaid stuff like cook meals from scratch, make clothes, etc. Changing gender/labour patterns have changed consumption needs and played a part in making us more reliant on consumer products produced by low-wage workers.
- We actually need to consume less if we’re not going to completely munt the environment (and therefore we have to spend time and money mending consumer items, instead of throwing them out and buying new ones). There’s a challenge here around making work life fit better with unpaid work, as well as moving away from the gendered division of paid and unpaid labour that was pretty typical under Keynesianism.
Enough ranting!
Really interesting points, Annanonymous! And ones which will be pertinent to Progress Path to Prosperity as much as (or even more than) Theoretical Foundations.
I’ll admit that while I feel fairly confident on the debates within and about Keynesian/productivist thinking, I’m less familiar with rigorous theories that bring environmental, feminist etc insights into the mix. In particular – in a Theoretical Foundations context – what do the sort of considerations you’ve flagged imply about what are likely to the most effective forms of non-market action to achieve social goals?
I’d be keen to hear your suggestions for good further reading.
Hi David
I actually don’t know anything much about environmental stuff, and the feminist stuff is related to my thesis (although there must have been others who’ve written about it – if I find any references, I’ll post them).
I’m very keen to hear more of your views on the Keynesian/productivist stuff!