The reality paradigm: policy possibilities and limitations

In an On Line Opinion piece “The Age of Reason” (January 15, 2009), David Young stated:

I used to believe that we lived in the age of reason. An age when we learn from experience and an age where we change the way we do things as we learn. I believed that science and technology could lead us to a world of prosperity for all; where wars would cease as scarcity diminished. But that was years ago.

This article - while also acknowledging the many problems confronting humanity - provides an alternative view by highlighting the ongoing reality of policy possibilities and limitations.

It is not hard to find evidence of humanity’s progress aided by the development of science and technology. For instance, while war and famine remain evident, the average human lifespan has increased from 22-25 years during the Roman Empire, to about 30 years in 1900, 64 years by 1980 and 66 in recent years. In Australia, the average lifespan has improved from about 52 years during 1891-1900 to about 80 years.

Even allowing for the environmental effects of greater insecticide and fertiliser use, much greater global food production has helped meet the nutritional needs of a rapidly growing world population (1.65 billion in 1900 to 6.7 billion in 2008).

And for those of us who believe in the positive role of government, there are many national examples that demonstrate a much fairer distribution of resources than previous centuries in regards to a society’s social policy needs, as shaped by ongoing interaction with interest groups and public opinion. Despite recent trends towards lower taxation rates for high-income earners and corporations, most Western societies have maintained a reasonable balance between government intervention and market forces as illustrated by an ongoing commitment to maintain a decent social welfare system.

There is also the reality that many societies have increasingly adopted progressive policies on race, gender, sexuality and even the environment.

In addition, polls show that a majority of nations accept that democracy is the most appropriate political system to enable a nation to encourage and maintain cohesion and meet its various economic, social and environmental needs.

Of course, with increasing concern about income disparity and environmental degradation at both the national and international levels, there is an obvious need for better policy ideas.

But, if one notes that progress can be slow, it is much wiser for a commentator to recognise policy limitations rather than blaming policy failure on people’s irrationality, inability, or reluctance to accept new ideas.

While we criticise our own national political leaders (with some even suggesting that corporations run society and determine who will lead the country), most of us look to our major political parties to uphold the national interest in these difficult times of ongoing economic reform.

If we accept the relevance of nations, it remains a reality that a society must organise itself in way conducive to it benefiting from its interaction with the international economy in order to prosper and meet its various economic, social and environmental needs.

Of course, the situation for poorer nations is that much harder as the rules have been defined by the wealthy nations, although Japan, Korea, Singapore, China and India have all benefited at different times since 1945 with vastly different cultural traditions. One has only to note how the IMF and World Bank set tough policy expectations on recipient nations in the past yet Western nations are now seeking to spend themselves out of trouble by increasing debt.

Sure there is an ongoing need to highlight the horrors of the world and the flaws of policy decisions both in national and international terms.

But when we “decide” what policies should be, as some authors do with their supposed moral certainty about what is right or wrong, readers need to look beyond the rhetoric. For instance, when someone declares that Australia should limit immigration and more forests should be saved, adequate attention must also be given to the responsibility that rich nations (like Australia) have as a destination for immigrants and a producer of food to the world.

Of course, we should be fearful of the policy challenges ahead. How we resolve the ongoing tension between economic development and environmental degradation, and how we provide enough employment and job creation without such an emphasis upon economic growth, are matters that no one has yet provided adequate answers to. In addition, the current financial and economic crisis will now provide such nations with their greatest ever peacetime policy problems as the limitations of freer trade and reliance upon higher economic growth aided by debt will become more evident.

Yet we are lucky living in Australia. Despite new challenges, such as the water shortage problem and the possibility of rising sea levels which could threaten thousands of city homes, we are fortunate to live in a sparse continent and to belong to one of the 20 least corrupt, wealthiest, and democratic nations in the world.

So what do we have left in this world of ongoing policy possibilities and limitations? We have our hard won opportunity in a free society to offer ideas to counter the supposed intellectual superiority of those who uphold the status quo. We do need commentary that comes from variety of perspectives, although the Australian situation has blurred the distinction between Left-Right as reflected by fewer voters staying loyal to the same political party and by a higher degree of policy convergence in recent decades.

Problem is that most individuals (and national governments) have little choice but to compete in order to get enough money to pay the bills.

And self-interest is extremely difficult to overcome, thus explaining why policy mixes will indeed differ from nation to nation. For instance, Germany’s renewable energy industry is so much more advanced than Australia’s, although the Labor government has proposed a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 and intends to cut Australia's carbon pollution to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 with a higher target should there be an international agreement.

In the end, it is always wise not to assume moral certainty without giving adequate consideration to the right of people in democracies to have different ideas. Take the global warming debate. While there is majority support for the government to do something about greenhouse gas emission levels, polls indicate that most Australians are not prepared to spend the necessary resources that will comprehensively alter the balance between economic and environmental needs. Hence, we had the Rudd Labor Government’s minimalist response to carbon trading, although it was a significant move in the right direction.

One can only hope that policy outcomes remain committed to the ideal of fairness. As governments struggle to adopt policies to ensure that Australia remains both competitive and compassionate, finding enough resources to meet a variety of economic, social and environmental needs may mean that some groups or issues may miss out as political parties endeavour to maximise their electoral support. For instance, giving grants to aid first home buyers and keep housing prices higher to help mortgage holders, is far more appealing to Labor than allowing prices to fall or spending similar resources on public housing to aid a growing minority of people who will never own a home.

Government support for certain policy ideas is much more likely when a clear majority is convinced that it is in their self-interest to co-operate.

So if one is losing the battle in terms of just a minority supporting certain ideas, then just accept it, improve your argument, and keep on arguing your case. One never knows when the tide will turn to again legitimise certain ideas, as evident after the disaster of the Great Depression and two world wars when policy-makers were encouraged to address a number of social concerns in the following decades.

Despite the concern expressed by David Young about current policy trends, we do live at time when many more media opportunities do exist for ideas that can encourage debate and help influence a more appropriate economic, social and environmental policy mix, although both policy possibilities and limitations will long remain evident in such a competitive and imperfect world.