Privatization as Theology
| Author | David Thomas,David Heald |
| Date | 01 April 1986 |
| Published date | 01 April 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207678600100204 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
49
Privatization
as
Theology
David
Heald,
University
of
Glasgow
and
David
Thomas,
Financial
Times
GRAND
CANVASSES
Prediction
in
such
matters
is
always
foolhardy,
but
it
does
seem
safe
to
assert
that
the
’achievements’
of
the
Thatcher
Governments
will
cause
them
to
be
remembered
at
least
as
a
landmark
in
the
twentieth
century
history
of
the
United
Kingdom,
if
not
even
as
a
decisive
turning
point.
Of
the
many
interesting
questions
raised
by
such
an
ambitious
programme
of
peacetime
political
transformation,
two
stand
out
for
immediate
attention.
First,
what
is
the
nature
of
the
new
political
coalition
which
has
not
only
achieved
power
but,
more
fundamentally,
has
secured
un-
expectedly
rapid
implementation
of its
programme
and
has
seized
virtually
complete
control
of
the
various
policy
agendas?
Second,
why
has
the
response,
at
one
level
in
terms
of
political
opposition
and
management
and
trade
union
obstruction,
and
on
a
wholly
different
level,
of
articulate
defence
of
the
rationale
for
the
public
sector,
been
so
muted
and
feeble?
’
The
starting
point
must
be
the
recognition
that
the
counter-revolution
has
been
a
spectacular
political
triumph;
.both
its
scale
of
implementation
and
its
redefinition
of
the
policy
agenda
mean
that
systematic
reversal
looks
a
questionable
project.
Re-election
on
the
scale
of
June
1983
not
only
demoralized
opposition
but
also
con-
ferred
a
new
legitimacy,
provoked
imitation,
and
stirred
new
ambitions.
Even
decisive
defeat
in
1988
would
not
erase
the
Thatcher
years;
meantime,
the
response
to
electoral
unpopularity
might
well
be
acceleration
rather
than
caution.
Criteria
for
judging
political
success
may,
of
course,
diverge
alarmingly
from
those
for
policy
evaluation.
To
take
just
two
examples,
industrial
production
has
barely
regained
the
level
of
1979;
and
the
’triumph’
of
the
British
Telecom
flotation
hardly
squares
with
reality.
’
Yet
there
is
a
reasonably
well-defined
’political
project’
and
a
rather
more
amor-
phous
coalition
of
interests
which
has
sustained
and
nourished
it.
Of
the
two
central
pillars
of
the
post-war
settlement,
the
Government
has
revoked
one
(the
policy
commitment
to
full
employment)
and
constantly
belittled
the
other
(the
*This
paper
was
presented
to
the
annual
Public
Administration
Committee
Conference
held
at
the
University
of
York,
2-4
September,
1985.
50
welfare
state).
Central
to
its
purposes,
it
wishes
to
destroy
the
power
of
trade
unions,
not
just
by
means
of
labour
legislation
and
the
debilitating
effects
of
un-
employment.
Trade
unions
are
regarded
as
the
main
obstacle
to
eliminating
rigidi-
ties
in
the
labour
market,
and
the
privatization
programme
is
designed
as
a
direct
challenge
to
the
unionized
strongholds
in
the
public
sector.’
No
amount
of
academic
references
could
be
more
revealing
than
the
comment
by
Mr
James
Prior,
formerly
Employment
Secretary
in
her
Government,
that
the
Prime
Minister
’loathes
trade
unions’.2
The
second
target
is
the
state,
though
here
the
position
is
more
ambivalent.
There
is,
of
course;
no
necessary
contradiction -
even
if
there
is
irony -
in
favouring
higher
spending
on
defence
and
law
and
order
within
lower
overall
public
spending.
But
this
phenomenon
does
draw
attention
to
the
paradox
of
the
Government’s
commitment
to
the
’free
economy,
strong
state’.3
Free
market
liberals,
who
indi-
vidually
may or
may
not
extend
their
libertarianism
to
issues
of
state
power
not
directly
related
to
the
measured
size
of
the
public
sector,
have
been
enormously
valuable
to
the
Government’s
purposes
through
their
success
in
realigning
intellectual
opinion
against
’big
government’.
Those
who
do
baulk
at
the
identifi-
cation
of
freedom
with
national
self-interest
in
foreign
affairs,
or
at
authoritarian
instincts
with
regard
to
civil
liberties
or
social
policy,
are
easily
dismissed
as
ir-
relevant
on
those
issues.
What
manifestly
is
important
is
that
the
’new
right’
has
been
defining
all
the
territory
and
winning
most
of
the
arguments.
It
cuts
deeper
than
an
impregnable
majority,
that
being
merely
an
artifice
of
the
electoral
system.
Just
look
at
how
the
impressive
output
of
the
Institute
of
Economic
Affairs
has
taken
it
from
outside
the
perceived
parameters
of
political
feasibility
and
sanity
and
transformed
it
into
the
quality
vehicle
of
a
new
intellectual
establishment.
Just
look
how
the
pontifi-
cations
gushing
out
of
the
IEA’s
inferior
imitators
are
taken
seriously
in
the
media.
Politicians
wishing
to
be
seen
as
relevant,
such
as
David
Owen,4
have
digested
the
market
wisdom.
Even
a
justifiably
reputable
research
organization
such
as
the
Institute
for
Fiscal
Studies
now
not
only
focuses
upon
the
’how’
rather
than
the
’whether’
of
privatization,
but
also
prides
itself
on
having
sown
the
seed
of
the
abolition
of
SERPS,S
a
step
proposed
by
one
of
the
most
loaded
policy
exercises
ever
conducted
in
the
United
Kingdom.
Times
have
indeed
changed.
HERESIES?
It
would
be
remarkable
folly
to
claim
that
the
phenomenon
of
privatization
has
owed
nothing
to
the
difficulties
which
have
emerged
in
the
post-war
world
of
running
economies
with
historically
unprecedentedly
large
public
sectors.
Privati-
zation
has
to
be
seen,
in
part,
as
a
policy
response
to
a
set
of
problems
which
by
the
end
of
the
1970s
were
perceived
to
characterize
large
swathes
of
the
public
sector.
If
this
is
viewed
in
some
circles -
whether
of
the
political
left,
of
public
sector
trade
unions,
or
even
of
public
administration
specialists -
as
heresy,
then
the
present
authors
must
stand
convicted.
However,
so
polarized
has
the
debate
now
become,
it
is
now
difficult
to
assert
the
view -
which
was
commonplace
before
To continue reading
Request your trial