National Competition Policy: The miracle of the free market

But does the success of economic policy automatically make it the complete answer? What if it - like America - is better than the alternative, but still only mostly right? What cost, policy righteousness?

Pharmacy regulation is a case in point. The crusade for freedom says pharmacists must give up restrictions that effectively prevent supermarkets stocking non-prescription drugs. Cheaper medicine is surely a good thing. Yet, something deep down also tells us that sacrificing the local chemist may be damaging in a big picture sense.

Pharmacists want proof that further change will be positive. One would have thought this reasonable, given the way infrastructure is performing. Maybe some at the Pharmacy Guild have read Christian Wolmar’s book, Broken Rails, on what was lost during the rail reforms in the UK: “Under the former British Rail, operating managers attempted to do everything they could to minimise delays and keep the railway running. They did not need the threat of fines or the possible loss of their franchise in order to do so. Their job was to operate the railway and they took pride in that task, often going well beyond their immediate responsibility”.

The Commission struggles with such economic intelligence because it conflicts with its principles. Fair enough. Its hypocrisy, on the other hand, is less defensible.

How can one expect others to have faith in your philosophy - dump protective legislation, let the market work and all will be better than fine - while refusing to take on face value the foreboding of those expected to submit to your doctrine? The Commission places faith in theory over people because it is blind to the possibility that the concerns expressed by others can be anything but self-serving.

According to GK Chesterton, the champion of reform is always right about what is wrong, but also generally wrong about what is right. I hope the Commission tries a little harder with this distinction come final report time.