More evidence of the failure of market led reform in Australia: market reform in water threatens Australia's future

"Australian water is now effectively commoditised: allocated to whoever is willing to pay the going price"
Ian Douglas

Excellent article by Ian Douglas of Fair Water Use Australia on the failure of market approaches in national water reform.:

"This blind commitment to growth, which also suffuses the policy platforms of the major parties, is being used to justify public-private partnerships and the construction of ill-conceived and untenably costly water infrastructure, most notoriously desalination plants. Our governments appear quite comfortable entering into public-private partnerships with multinationals whose track record in terms of corporate responsibility on the global stage is, at best, in-glorious."

Douglas argues that the reliance on market based approaches and the privatization of water is incompatible with the idea of access to water as a public good and poses a serious threat to Australia's water future:

Douglas argues that despite the fact that polling indicates that at least 70% of Australians are opposed to water privatization it continues to be imposed on the nation, under the guise of water reform:

"Australian water reform was conceived in 1994 by the Council of Australian Governments; nurtured by the prevailing mantra that free-market exposure was the ultimate panacea for undercapitalised and inefficient public utilities. COAG went one giant leap further, in deciding to establish a national water market; arguing that this would direct water to its most productive use.

In the years since these sweeping changes were announced, the wisdom of applying free market principles to the management of an essential natural resource has been largely discredited by events overseas: In the water-supply sector, major corporate players have been accused and, in more than a few instances, convicted of price-gouging, anti-competitive behaviour, corrupt practice and fraud. On all continents there are moves to wrest control from private corporations. Globally, more than 90 per cent of water services are now publicly owned.

In Australia there are valid concerns that water reform is leaving crucial decisions, with respect to the “where”, “when” and “how” of water distribution, in the hands of entities whose priority is profit rather than socially and environmentally responsible water use. Questions are being raised as to why our governments have been prepared to implement these radical policies without seeking and obtaining prior electoral mandate and in the absence of adequate constitutional protection of water.

Phillip Pullman and the greedy ghost of market madness

"there are things above profit, things that profit knows nothing about.. things that stand for civic decency and public respect for imagination and knowledge and the value of simple delight"  Phillip Pullman

Fantastic speech here by British author Phillip Pullman on what he calls "the greedy ghost of market madness" and the social, cultural, and democratic dislocation that it causes. 

In this speech Pulman attacks the British Government for its austerity cuts which are resulting in the closure of hundreds of libraries throughout the UK and are hitting the most marginalized and disadvantaged the hardest, whilst delivering tax cuts and more public funds to the wealthy, the corporate elite and business and corporate interests.

Pulman points the finger directly at all those who advocate for the unfettered freedom of the market  and who measure the success of an endeavor or a public responsibility by the metric of profit .

"...........And it always results in victory for one side and defeat for the other. It’s set up to do that. It’s imported the worst excesses of market fundamentalism into the one arena that used to be safe from them, the one part of our public and social life that used to be free of the commercial pressure to win or to lose, to survive or to die, which is the very essence of the religion of the market. Like all fundamentalists who get their clammy hands on the levers of political power, the market fanatics are going to kill off every humane, life-enhancing, generous, imaginative and decent corner of our public life. I think that little by little we’re waking up to the truth about the market fanatics and their creed. We’re coming to see that old Karl Marx had his finger on the heart of the matter when he pointed out that the market in the end will destroy everything we know, everything we thought was safe and solid. It is the most powerful solvent known to history. “Everything solid melts into air,” he said. “All that is holy is profaned.”

Market fundamentalism, this madness that’s infected the human race, is like a greedy ghost that haunts the boardrooms and council chambers and committee rooms from which the world is run these days.

So decisions are made for the wrong reasons. The human joy and pleasure goes out of it; books are published not because they’re good books but because they’re just like the books that are in the bestseller lists now, because the only measure is profit.

The greedy ghost is everywhere. That office block isn’t making enough money: tear it down and put up a block of flats. The flats aren’t making enough money: rip them apart and put up a hotel. The hotel isn’t making enough money: smash it to the ground and put up a multiplex cinema. The cinema isn’t making enough money: demolish it and put up a shopping mall.

"...............The greedy ghost understands profit all right. But that’s all he understands. What he doesn’t understand is enterprises that don’t make a profit, because they’re not set up to do that but to do something different. He doesn’t understand libraries at all, for instance. That branch – how much money did it make last year? Why aren’t you charging higher fines? Why don’t you charge for library cards? Why don’t you charge for every catalogue search? Reserving books – you should charge a lot more for that. Those bookshelves over there – what’s on them? Philosophy? And how many people looked at them last week? Three? Empty those shelves and fill them up with celebrity memoirs.

That’s all the greedy ghost thinks libraries are for.

Now of course I’m not blaming Oxfordshire County Council for the entire collapse of social decency throughout the western world. Its powers are large, its authority is awe-inspiring, but not that awe-inspiring. The blame for our current situation goes further back and higher up even than the majestic office currently held by Mr Keith Mitchell. It even goes higher up and further back than the substantial, not to say monumental, figure of Eric Pickles. To find the true origin you’d have to go on a long journey back in time, and you might do worse than to make your first stop in Chicago, the home of the famous Chicago School of Economics, which argued for the unfettered freedom of the market and as little government as possible.

Gavin Mooney on the difference between compassionate acts and a compassionate society

photo courtesy of the Age and Getty

This piece first appeared in Crikey.

Floods aside just how compassionate is Australia
by Gavin Mooney, Health Economist and co convener WA Social Justice Network

The recent devastating floods have brought out all sorts of emotions. We have seen expressions of great compassion and generosity. And these are emotions that we seem genuinely to treasure when we see them, whether these be in our fellow citizens or in our leaders. In all the heart-wrenching devastation of lives and property, it is heart-warming to see so many showing their compassion for those who have lost so very much.

The question of compassion is one in which as a health economist I have a particular interest. I have recently sought to make a case that strong, compassionate communities are good for people’s health.
I also argued a few years ago, for example, that countries that were more compassionate treated drug addiction and drug addicts better and, while it was difficult to "prove", some leading drug experts expressed the view that I was on to something.

One of the difficulties here is how to quantify compassion. Can we find a measure that will allow us to see how compassionate we are as a society compared say to the Swedes or the Americans or the Brits?

Earlier I used just public expenditure as a proportion of total national income and Australia didn’t come out of that well. Across 33 OECD countries, for example in 2008, we came fifth from the bottom on 27.1%. On this indicator, the countries that came out well -- perhaps predictably -- were the Scandinavians with Denmark at the top with 48.2%.

Another possible measure is public social expenditure and here we do rather badly again.
These are somewhat crude but not silly measures of social compassion. In this context, public expenditure matters. It is difficult to see how we can build a caring society if we rely too heavily on the market. That may be OK for Tim Tams and TVs but for addressing poverty, inequality, Aboriginal disadvantage, mental illness and flood protection, we need public monies.

But I have just come across a paper that has some really worrying stats on Australian compassion. Well not strictly compassion but what is called "generosity" but it is pretty much the same thing. It examines what it calls "the generosity of social insurance".

What it does is rather neat. It argues that we can use certain public-sector programs to get an estimate of how generous (or in my language compassionate) a country’s welfare state is.

So, for example, we can take unemployment insurance. One measure of that program’s generosity is what proportion of income that replaces. Added to that is the "coverage ratio" i.e. the proportion of the population covered. Multiplying these together gives an index of "generosity" for that program. Clearly the higher the index, the greater the generosity.

The paper then does the same for sick pay and for state pensions. It adds the three indices together and comes up with an overall generosity index.

Not perfect but an interesting exercise.

Now the scary bit. Australia comes bottom of 18 OECD countries! Oh dear, we are the least generous of them all. Even the US, which is often seen as being the land of free enterprise, individualistic and unwilling to provide decent health care for its people (especially its poor), comes out quite a bit above us. According to this index, in comparison, countries such as Sweden and Norway are dripping with compassion.

I think we are a compassionate people -- if we are given the chance and all sorts of private acts in the past few days and weeks show that. But we need our governments to recognise that. We need leaders prepared to lead. Many -- most? -- of us who are well off would be willing to pay more taxes to help the less fortunate.

We do want a compassionate society. We do believe in the fair go.

Julia: stop messing about. Recognise that we Aussies really do have a decent streak in us -- we have just shown it. We want a caring community. We cannot get it -- and you will not get it -- if you continue to pander to our baser selfish interests and instincts.

Tax us more. Build a caring public sector. We want to be the custodians of a decent society. We want to be led to that compassionate society. It will also make us a healthier society. Let’s get on with it.

Market logic, disability and euthanasia: A book review

A Book Review
by Gavin Mooney

Book Reviewed:

Erik Leipoldt (2010) Euthanasia and Disability Perspective: An Investigation in The Netherlands and Australia VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft, Saarbrücken

Each of the two central issues in this book - euthanasia and disability - is big in itself. Bringing the two together is a monumental task and especially when this is set in a values framework. The author succeeds in his efforts to do this and in a way which is both accessible and challenging.

The purposes of the study reported in this book were (p39) `to discuss Dutch and Australian disability perspectives towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; and to find how the life experiences of the informants [people with quadriplegia] ... may illuminate these perspectives'.

Yet to me the central theme of the book is not euthanasia as such nor indeed disability. What the book questions in debating these themes is what autonomy is and whether it merits being seen as so much of an individualistic phenomenon as it so often is, at least in this neo liberal world in which so many of us live. As Leipoldt argues `individual autonomy is the dominant discourse of our age'.

Without disagreeing I wonder if things are not changing. I have in the past been much struck by the work of the likes of Catriona McKenzie, Diana Meyers and Natale Stoljar [1] on relational autonomy and the idea of `community autonomy'. Despite the efforts of so many economists today (this reviewer is an economist) - particularly market economists - and many liberal philosophers to see us all as free floating atoms, that depiction of human beings just somehow does not ring true. We are social animals, we rely on others to some extent and maybe even take our identities in part from our interactions with others. And the interdependency of peoples across the globe has been heightened yet further by both the Global Financial Crisis and the threat of climate change. OK the impact of these on government policies and in turn on human relationships have not really percolated through yet. But this is one `trickling down' that I am confident will trickle down.

Certainly Rawls' placing of individuals behind his veil of ignorance was simply a philosophical construct to aid understanding. Yet it is so false that one has to question how valuable that device is in reaching any sort of understanding of what it means to be a person. Behind a veil of ignorance or a free floating atom? In an odd sense, much of a muchness and much of an unreality.

So for Leipoldt to look at euthanasia through the eyes of 28 people with quadriplegia in Australia and the Netherlands provides not only a novel view but one that in turn challenges the notion of individual autonomy in a most useful fashion. Whatever else, no one reading this will ever again see autonomy in quite the same way - unless maybe a person with disabilities.

The views of people with quadriplegia on this issue have not been examined before which is a quite startling revelation in itself. Leipoldt suggests (p38): `The perspective of people with disabilities may be able to contribute new ... aspects to the euthanasia debate. Major physical, social and psychological changes and challenges arise for a person who acquires a significant disability like quadriplegia.'

On the question of autonomy and individualism the shift to more of the latter is highlighted by one respondent (p 170): `people are becoming more assertive and demand more. I think that if you look ten years ahead people's autonomy will go further ... I think society will become more and more individualistic.'

The book is insightful on the issue of dependency with one response (p 205) suggesting that `dependency gives a very deep relationship with people and you'. And again (p 209): `How do we look at things like interdependence, that are the bigger issues? Because it doesn't matter how dependent or independent you are if you have people around you and you are part of what's happening and contributing to that then whether you can do it on your own isn't the issue.' Wonderfully for me, issues of reciprocity, mutuality, participation, sharing and caring shriek out from these pages.

There is a sense in which what this book tells us primarily in capturing the views of a group who are in many ways dependent and vulnerable as people with disabilities are two things. First interdependence and dependence are not negative traits; and second in some sense or other to be complete human beings we need to be interdependent and dependent and we need to recognise that need. These are particularly interesting issues in the very specific context of the main thrust for the author of this book i.e. euthanasia and disability. But for me the book shows that worshipping at the altar of individual autonomy or even individualistic autonomy is to bow down before false Gods. Such autonomy is almost certainly not attainable and, even if were, it aint worth attaining.

This is a powerful book at many levels.

Reference
1. C Mackenzie and N Stoljar (eds) 2000. Relational Autonomy. Oxford: OUP.