There is a desire on the part of the community for an investment in infrastructure and human resources and I think there has been a shift in attitude in the community on this, even among the most ardent economic rationalists2Howard is, arguably, the last of the Thatcherites. He entered the Australian Parliament in 1974, just as the Keynesian social-democratic consensus of the postwar period was coming to an end. He was Treasurer in the Fraser government (which held office from 1975 to 1983) and, subsequently one of Fraser’s bitterest critics, arguing that the government had missed the opportunity to undertake radical market-oriented reform3. In Opposition through the 1980s, he was the leading advocate of free-market reforms, continually pushing the Hawke-Keating Labor government (by inclination a precursor of Blair’s Third Way) to the right. On gaining office in 1996 after a very muted campaign, he introduced drastic expenditure cuts and established a Commission of Audit to find more. He’s been gradually moving away from this radical position ever since, in the face of increasing public opposition. Until now, however, he has never openly repudiated the ideological goal of rolling back the public sector.
.I think it’s reasonable to treat this statement as representing the end of the neoliberal push to overturn the social-democratic settlement, at least in the English-speaking countries
In Britain,the Blair-Brown government, which started out offering little more than Thatcherism with a human face has gradually shifted towards a modified social democracy, raising both taxes and public spending. New Zealand has turned its back on the radical reforms of the 80s and 90s (though Don Brash, one of the architects of those reforms, now leads the opposition National Party, having morphed into a law-and-order race-card conservative). I can’t really follow Canadian politics but the story there seems to be much the same.
Finally, there’s the US under Bush which has managed to follow the tax-cutting part of neoliberalism, but not the expenditue-cutting part. I honestly don’t know how this will play out when the bills finally come due. But it’s fair to say that, in rhetorical terms at least, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” represents a repudiation of neoliberalism.
The failure of the neoliberal counter-revolution doesn’t mean that old-style social democracy is going to be restored any time soon. Rather, the current period of confusion will eventually generate a new synthesis, something I plan to post more about soon.
1 Because of changes in the tax system, and the complexities of a federal system, debate over this claim gets tangled in definitional issues. For the purposes of this post, it’s sufficient to note that the ratios of government revenue and public expenditure to GDP have been broadly stable for the past twenty years or so, after rising steadily for many decades before that.
2 The term ‘economic rationalist’ is broadly equivalent to ‘neoliberal’ or ‘Thatcherite’, though with more emphasis on bureacratic rationality as the basis of policy processes
3 Fraser, originally seen as a disciple of Ayn Rand has given credibility to this critique, moving steadily to the left ever since he left office to the point where he is now in general agreement with his former adversary, Gough Whitlam.
I think calling Brash an architect of the Rogernomics/Ruthanasia reforms is stretching a point a bit far — he was Governor of the Reserve Bank, so he’s certainly associated with them in the public mind, but he wasn’t in Parliament during the ’80s, and he was much less outspoken in his macroeconomic office than, say, Greenspan is/was.
I also think you underrate the extent that neoliberalism pulled the centre of gravity rightwards. Just as the English-speaking Labo(u)r parties turned from socialists into social democrats in the fifties and sixties, once they’d had their great welfare state-building moments and then lost office, so the neoliberals are becoming whatever they’re becoming not because they failed but because they succeeded — no more revolutionarily than the socialists did, it’s true, but succeeded nevertheless.
I broadly agree with you about Brash - I couldn’t find the right description of his role.
Comparing the socialists/social democrats with the neoliberals, I think the most objective metric of success is the ratio of public expenditure to national income, and the picture here is pretty clear - the social democrats succeeded in greatly expanding the state, and the neoliberals could only manage to halt this process, not reverse it.
I think it’s reasonable to treat this statement as representing the end of the neoliberal push to overturn the social-democratic settlement, at least in the English-speaking countries.
Whatever the other merits of the post, it’s a little hard to accept that a small change in Australian economic policy can really represent such a sea-change across the world. Reminds me of an editorial I saw in a Belgian newspaper:
“We need a stronger EU so that Belgium’s unique voice can be heard on the world stage”.
I honestly don’t know how this will play out when the bills finally come due.
Depends on if he gets a second term — if so, the adjustments necessary to service our debt will be enormous enough that they may well undermine faith in the government’s ability to meet debt obligations, much less anything more lofty than that.
”[…]at least in the English-speaking countries”
It’s a shame that thirld world countries are still forced to adopt policies that we now view as desastrous and counter-productive.
He entered the Australian Parliament in 1974, just as the Keynesian social-democratic consensus of the postwar period.
The Keynesian social-democratic consensus entered the Australian Parliament in 1974?
Fixed now, thanks jo’n
Finally, there’s the US under Bush which has managed to follow the tax-cutting part of neoliberalism, but not the expenditue-cutting part. I honestly don’t know how this will play out when the bills finally come due.
How the Repubs hope it will play out, I think, is that it will give them an excuse to accelerate their programme of slashing social programmes. Or to force the Democrats to take on that program.
It’s annoying how whenever anyone makes an income-tax cut, all proposed rises thereafter are judged relative to the current level of income tax, not the absolute level. What before would have been a 1% rise, becomes a 2 or 3% rise and therefore unspeakably radical. And the same goes for spending. I think the Bush administration is trying to maximise the scale of the problem, within reason, in order to force the debate about how to fix it, rightwards, if you see what I mean.
There is a consensus here. However, Bush and his party are outside of the consensus. So when the biggest kid on the team is going the other way it is harder proclaim an Anglosphere trend.
What the UK, NZ, AUS, CAN all have in common is that under Keynsian deficit/inflationary programs all four countries hit a debt wall. A point at which increases in the marginal indebtedness of the nation destroyed more wealth then was created through spending multipliers. Neo-liberal thinking was turned to as an alternative, but eventually reached marginally declining gains in wealth creation through tax cuts and government service cuts. The new synthesis blends the two approaches: balanced budgets with continuing infrastructure reinvestment and ongoing fat trimming in the public service.
The US is off the reservation in that one group, the Republican leaders, want to continue the neo liberal project. There is a Lennenist quality to their current policies in that they all seem aimed to “highten the contradictions”. The hope being that when the crisis is unwound there will be a once in a lifetime opportunity to permanently reduce the size of Governemnt in the economy: a reverse Great Depression if you will.
Needless to say, it is a very dicy proposition, especially while there is a War on. Will the American electorate go along?
I doubt that Howard is the last “rationalist” in the liberal party- how else would you describe Abbot or Costello?
It’s also worth questioning two assumptions - first that Howard was radically to the right of his party from the start - my view is that, economically he has been much more centrist than his more “shrill” detractors give him credit for.
Secondly circumstance plays a role - the economy is delivering an unplanned surplus because of the senate logjam.
If the debt is repaid in the next couple of years the government is going to have to start buying private assets. There is a view, which I subscribe to that this is a lot more dangerous/irrational than the government building things or providing support for people.
Faced with the choice between letting the surplus continue and increasing expenditure, I think Howard is choosing expenditure - for this and political reasons. But in other circumstances faced with a straight more expenditure less expenditure choice I’m not so sure.
Abbott and Costello are career politicians, tough but with no particular ideology. In particular, Abbott as Health Minister has been associated with lots of new spending and a reversal of the government’s previously negative attitude to Medicare.
Abbott and Costello are career politicians
Yes, he is.
What?
What’s the foreign secretary?
He’s the last bastion of neoliberalism?
Who?
No, he’s the finance minister.
[…]
Well Thatcher was associated with lots of new spending and spent here entire career as a politician but that didn’t stop her being a thatcherite. Anyway go to http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/speech/04feb24_AFRconferences.pdf
where abbot makes the point that Australia’s health care is good because of the large private component. The one direction he clearly isn’t advocating is a mainly public health service like the NHS.
I seriously doubt you’ll find any speech where he argue that the proportion of GDP going to the government should be increased.
Sure he’s provided over spending increases but if you argue that anyone who provides over absolute spending rises isn’t a thatcherite then virtually no one ever is.
Howard is a Poujadist. Don’t insult us true neo-liberals by calling him one. Revealing fact - Bob Carr and Mark Latham, both Labor politicians - have had much more publicly to do with the free market Centre for Independent Studies think-tank than Howard. (Latham’s falling out was personal rather than political)
Giles, I made the point about Thatcher’s spending in the version of this post on my own blog.
“if you argue that anyone who provides over absolute spending rises isn’t a thatcherite then virtually no one ever is.”
My criterion is weaker - that a successful Thatcherite should cut spending significantly relative to GDP. On this basis, I conclude that Thatcherism has failed, and that Howard is acknowledging this.
Ah, but suppose a sadistic angel asks you if you think that neoliberalism is on the decline? If you’re right, this adorable kitten gets a government-subsidized backscratch. If not, the free market subjects the next twenty trillion humans to subpoverty wages and no social services…
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
gouvernment outlays as a of GDp have fallen from 38.2 of GDP in 96 to 36.2% today. Not a hugely significant amount but still a cut.
Still I’d go with Jason’s description that he’s esssentially a Poujadist
Giles can you give a source - the Budget papers agree with your 36.2 for today, but not the 38.2 for 1996 (for some reason, the Table in the 2004-5 budget doesn’t give consolidated figures, but the graphs suggest around 35 and that’s consistent with what I recall from the time).
figures are for General government outlays from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls
Thanks for this, giles. Note that the revenue/GDP ratio goes the other way. Still, there must be some definitional difference affecting the earlier data, probably to do with the treatment of government business enterprises.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review