| |
|
In the trans thread Mr Disco writes:
For huge corporations, you're not going to change their minds by making them love other people -- you're going to change their minds when it becomes less profitable for them to continue what they're doing than change their ways. I think that works with governments, too.
This thread is about what motivates governments to undertake policy reform and how they go about it, and possible alternatives. This is particularly in response to a current reform agenda in Australian government that calls for reform in 'human capital' (health and education) as a way to bolster economic growth by encouraging participation and productivity. Put simply, the premise is that the healthier and more educated we all are the harder and more efficiently we will all work, which will then lead to growth in GDP. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are similar examples in other countries, but this is the one I will refer to because it is the one I am most familiar with.
See here for a range of links that outline this reform agenda.
This quote sums up its direction:
Continuing to support our businesses to participate and succeed in the global economy will be vital. However, it will be a new ‘human capital’ agenda that delivers greater productivity combined with higher labour force participation, that will allow us to reach for higher levels of prosperity in the decade ahead. Improving health, learning and work outcomes is the path to building a healthy, skilled and motivated society, and an economy that is among the world’s best.
While I am pleased that social policy issues like education and health are on the agenda, something about this formulation makes me feel uneasy, and I would be interested in hearing from others what they think about it. Is it just a fiendishly clever way to get social issues to be taken seriously by governments, which, as Mr Disco suggests above, appear to be motivated most strongly by economic incentives? Or is it reprehensible that care for their constituent’s health and education can only be mustered up in the name of economic growth and making us all work harder? Are there alternative ways to approach social policy in a liberal democracy?
I am particularly interested to hear about such alternatives, and also to hear from those of you who have a deeper understanding of the theoretical frameworks that underpin ideas about labour, economics and policy-making than I do.
(If this thread belongs more properly in Switchboard, I am very happy for it to be moved.) |
|
|
