Perhaps it was Francis Fukuyama who put it best:
One of the most important lessons we can learn from an examination of economic life is that a nation’s well-being, as well as its ability to compete, is conditioned by a single, pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent in the society.’
This trust, which lay at the heart of the flurry of useful, resistance of transactions that make up a market economy, in turn rests on the ability of communities to share norms and rules.
In this sense, economic life, as Adam Smith well understood, cannot be divorced from culture.
The model of neo-classical economics in which firms maximise profits and markets are perfectly competive, can’t explain the historical phenomenon that:
‘The greatest economic efficiency was not necessarily achieved by rational self-interested individuals but rather by groups of individuals who, because of a pre-existing moral community, are able to work together effectively. ’
As that great student of the Mafia, Diego Gambetta puts it:
‘Societies which rely heavily on the use of force are likely to be less efficient, more costly, and more unpleasant than those where trust is maintained by other means.’
Which is why the ideas, the culture – and yes, the influence of society around the value and belief around equality a shared vision utmost of importants – your soft touchy feely ideas if you like, I predict, will grow.
So, how do we know when it’s working?
When we see an investment in all of equality and diversity from all corners of society in Britain as more valuable than a short-term bet on American sub-prime debt.
When we find a way of putting opportunity on every corner of every community, and chance, across the country.
When we find a way of delivering life chances for life for all people.
When we find a way of harnessing the passion power that lives in all communities as a market force and a market mover.
This is where we want to reach to stretch.
Why? Because in January, government published an important blueprint for the future, of which we are an intimate part.
The New Opportunities white paper set out a vision for how we in this country should seek to capture a big slice of the 1 billion skilled jobs that will be created around the world in the decade to come, but to open those jobs to people from all walks of life and every corner of the community.
The Government said there wanted to see a step change in social mobility.
Not by waving a magic wand, or wishing for a better world, or by organising some nice tokenism opportunities.
But by investing in individuals, and families and communities at every stage of life.
But you know as well as I do, that government alone cannot deliver this future. Business alone can’t do the job. Nor can civic society. And nor is it in skies of my world.
But together, a strong government and a strong economy and a strong civic society as well, together we have a chance.
This is what I see in my own community.
But, what has public service in Britain taught us is that in this future; we’re not going to have a performance that matches our potential unless we strengthen the ties that bind us.
We can do well in this new world. But not by turning our backs on it.
At the next election, whenever it is, it is quite possible for people to vote for a bit less open. For a bit more anti-Europe. For a bit less foreign aid. For borders that are closed not carefully open.
If we want a different future and a future that is open to the world, then we have to win an argument that carefully open and is sensitive to issues and mediate open debate is better than hesitantly closed.
And that means we have to win an emotional argument about change and how we see the value of age, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, religious belief. The whole benefits of engaging in this as Francis Fukuyama says his argument is Aristotelian and that "Aristotle argued, in effect, that human notions of right and wrong and what we today call human rights were ultimately based on Human nature"
Regarding the recent financial crisis, Fukuyama supports supervision of this economic sector. "Financial institutions need strong supervision, but it isn't clear that other sectors of the economy do."
- What do you think?
- Does it matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment