----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 1:11 AM Subject: Re: this past week in Oz > There is an alternative > http://www.theage.com.au/news/20000815/A3778-2000Aug14.html > > > By TOM MORTON > THE AGE (Melbourne) > Tuesday 15 August 2000 > > It's time for politicians and > journalists in Australia to > 'fess up. It's time for them > to come clean about their > affair with TINA. > > TINA stands for There Is > No Alternative. She is the > High Priestess of > Globalisation. Journalists, > in particular, like to repeat > her mantra over and over again: globalisation is > inevitable, it is a process that imposes the same > restraints on governments everywhere, and there is > nothing anyone can do to escape its iron embrace. > > TINA decrees that all governments have to submit to > the same basic rules: low taxes, small government, lean, > mean welfare, and less and less control over the > functions of the body politic. > > Though harsh, TINA is a comfort for her devoted > servants, because she relieves them of the need to > think. TINA is a queen of illusion, a murmurer of > half-truths and seductive simplifications. > > But if TINA really rules supreme, why is it that some of > the most open economies in the world, the nations most > deeply integrated into the global economy, also have > the biggest government sectors and the highest > spending on welfare? > > This is the startling, counter-intuitive truth discovered by > Dani Rodrik, the John F. Kennedy professor of > government at Harvard. Rodrik carried out an > extensive study of the relationship between trade flows > and government spending throughout the OECD and > came up with an extraordinary conclusion: countries > such as Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands, which > have very open economies with high levels of trade > flows relative to GDP, also have high levels of taxation > and welfare spending. > > Rodrik's hypothesis about why this should be so is > simple, but compelling: "Societies seem to demand (and > receive) an expanded government role as the price for > accepting larger doses of external risk." > > In other words, governments in these countries have > realised that the price of openness, flexibility and the > greater insecurity that goes with globalisation, is a > strong safety net to catch people when they fall. > > His analysis is complemented by the work of Paul Hirst > and Grahame Thompson, British academics whose > book Globalisation in Question neatly pulls the > prayer mat out from under the knees of TINA's > worshippers. > > Hirst and Thompson show that Denmark and Holland > have been able to retain the best features of the welfare > state while running open, highly competitive economies. > Holland, in particular, has been "a crucial experiment > for the effects of globalisation on the welfare state, > since it is one of the most highly internationalised > economies in the world, and has been for some time". > > Like Australia, the Netherlands went through a period > of difficult and sometimes highly unpopular restructuring > of the welfare state in the late 1980s and early '90s. But > the results have been very different. > > Unemployment in Holland, according to the latest > OECD figures, is running at around 3 per cent. The > Dutch labor force has increased by 25 per cent since > the early 1980s but, unlike the Anglo-Saxon > economies, the price of a growing economy has not > been growing inequality. The Netherlands, conclude > Hirst and Thompson, "have achieved a remarkable > turnaround, boosting unemployment, reducing the costs > of welfare without fundamentally undermining the > welfare state, and achieving modest but non-inflationary > growth". > > Well, you might ask, so what? What do we have to > learn from a nation of tulip farmers? > > In some ways, Australia and Holland are not that > dissimilar. We have similar-sized populations and > economies. What's different about the Dutch, it seems, > is a kind of enlightened pragmatism. > > Rather than blind adherence to the precepts of > neo-liberalism, the Dutch have approached the > challenges of globalisation in a practical, > problem-solving way. Labor has accepted that the cost > of job creation is less regulation and greater flexibility > and uncertainty. Capital has accepted that the cost of > deregulation and a more flexible workforce is > continuing support for a strong welfare state, paid for > by relatively high taxation. In Holland, it seems, you can > have your gingerbread and eat it too. > > In Denmark, which has a very similar system, the > gingerbread comes with certain strings attached. As our > own Federal Government prepares to deliver its > much-awaited welfare reforms, the Danish version of > mutual obligation makes an interesting contrast. Young > unemployed people must accept jobs or training > courses that are offered to them, or lose the dole. But > dole payments are much more generous than in > Australia. As a result, the Danes have a highly flexible, > deregulated labor market: because the stress of moving > in and out of employment is much less severe. > > Why shouldn't this be the case in Australia too? Why > do most of our leading commentators and our > politicians, both Labor and Coalition, persist in a blind > advocacy of the Anglo-American model? > > It's hard to resist the conclusion that we can't break the > habit of 200 years of forelock tugging. But this may be > unfair. It's probably truer to say that critics of > neo-liberalism have failed, until now, to present clear > and coherent alternatives to the cult of TINA. > > Those alternatives exist, and not only in Holland and > Denmark. It would be a mistake to abandon > unswerving devotion to TINA for a similarly > single-minded infatuation with a Dutch or Danish > model. The left in Australia now should be > promiscuous, drawing its ideas from as many sources > as possible: from the lively debates about stake-holding > and new forms of social ownership taking place in > Britain, from the new forms of "citizens' work" and > social entrepreneurship being pioneered in the > arch-conservative German state of Bavaria, and from > the revived discussion of universal incomes in the US. > > The sterile, sham "debate" about trade at the recent > ALP national conference only provides further evidence > that the Labor Party is not yet ready to forsake TINA. > If Labor really wants to win back the confidence of > voters, it should be courageous enough to open up > debate about new responses to globalisation, not close > them off. > > Most importantly, though, the broad left in Australia > needs to speak the unspeakable: the simple truth that > good public services cost money and have to be paid > for by those who use them - we taxpayers. > > The election of a Labour government in New Zealand > with an explicit commitment to raising taxes and > rebuilding the public sector shows that voters will > respond. > > Kim Beazley has taken a step in the right direction by > refusing to rule out tax increases if Labor is elected. He > should now show that the party has the guts to govern > by explicitly linking modest tax rises to increased > spending on health, education, child care and job > creation. > > Tom Morton's Background Briefing on the future of > the left will be broadcast on ABC Radio National > tonight (Tuesday) at 7.10. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
