Is the 'Third Way' the right way?

According to Hugh Collins' article “Is there a Third Way in Labour Law” published in the 2001 book The Global Third Way Debate, it is not the agenda of the “Third Way” to argue that competition is best served by deregulation. Collins believes the “Third Way” views regulation as seeking to improve the operation of the market, “not to replace, or impede it”. This is consistent with Giddens' support for the “Third Way” as a search for the correct balance between regulation and deregulation.

A critique of the “Third Way’s” equitable outlook

In practice, the “Third Way” encourages meritocracy (a merit based philosophy). Meritocrats argue that people get out of the system what they put into it, based on a supposedly neutral concept of individual merit. Most “Third Way” and neo-liberal sympathisers conclude that meritocracy will tend to increase social mobility in a new era of equal opportunity, one that offers people every chance to fulfil their own potential.

In other words, meritocratic policies promote the worst of new world and old world political reflection. It is even worse than aristocracy because it attempts to valorise power and privilege as qualities which are merited rather than inherited. This indicates that meritocracy only offers a shift in patterns of inequality, unfairly exalting the rich, while condemning the poor to false hopes of individualised social mobility.

Meritocracy as a theory of political power and influence, is disputed. Many, like Michael Young, a well known author on the subject, express opposition in terms which show how sad, and fragile, a meritocratic society could be. If the rich and powerful were encouraged by the general culture to believe they fully deserved all they had, how arrogant they would become and, if they were convinced it was all for the common good, how ruthless in pursuing their own advantage.

Meritocracy is even worse than aristocracy because it attempts to acquire plus points because it connotes power and privilege as merited rather than inherited. This is only further proof of the argument that meritocracy is detrimental to most of those who also suffer from a socioeconomic divide, such as, people with disabilities and different abilities. Giddens, an advocate of most “Third Way” policies, argues that this form of equity is untenable, creating deep inequalities of outcome that threaten social cohesion.

The “Third Way’s” most fundamental action towards the attainment of equality is the promotion of equality of access. Equality of access is to be applied in circumstances that can assist those pursuing equality, which in theory becomes a means of enhancing social inclusion through equal forms of social mobility. Equality of access is both relevant and robust, avoiding both the theoretical drawbacks of equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Equality of access will bring rationality to policies that involve equality, and are able to provide a benchmarked position by which to measure policies of equality. It is argued that equality of access provides a worthy ambition for a modern, reforming government.

Many advocates of the “Third Way”, believe, in part, in a system of civic responsibility. Civic responsibility recognises that you cannot renew a community by issuing a set of top-down instructions. There is a need for a community approach that can see the benefit gained in looking after society’s most valuable assets, namely ourselves, how we inter-relate one with another. A community that works towards the collective goals of a society is acting as a beacon for communal social cohesiveness.

Social entrepreneurs can be effective in providing policies that are measured and responsible, contributing to an economic use of state resources, and thereby driving down the need for a large public sector. Social entrepreneurs are defined by prominent “Third Way” thinkers, as entrepreneurs who do not work towards individual profit, but who work instead towards the community benefit, believing that social capital is a key element in any society's success.

The “Third Way” seeks to recapture previous social democratic views (R H Tawney) which explicitly defined success and happiness in ways than did not treat individual profit as the goal. The generation of social capital has a social and economic equalising effect throughout the entire society.

David Puttnam presented his definition of social entrepreneurialism at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland:

Broadly speaking, social entrepreneurs are what you get when you cross Richard Branson with Mother Teresa. They do their most effective work at the fringe of the market place, where both the public sector and the market itself have failed to deliver important goods and services, particularly to those who can pay little. … They may or may not operate for profit, but their bottom line is social transformation, enabling all to take part in building sustainable livelihoods and just societies.

Puttnam argues that social entrepreneurialism has brought about change in the way current political leaders have pursued global corporatism. It is said to have brought social development within the corporate sector into vogue. Puttnam believes that this has been done by finding ways that develop the social inclusiveness of the corporate sector, while adding to its profits.

Hugh Stretton is another prominent critic of the taken-for-granted approach of the “Third Way”, but he acknowledges that the “Third Way” can be understood as one way in which social democrats are responding to globalisation.