Published by the Observer in its "The New York Times" supplement, an eight page selection of articles from that newspaper, David Leonhardt, a financial journalist refers to "Getting Better" a book by Charles Kenney a British development economist based in Washington.
In this book Kenney argues that life in much of Africa and in most of the impoverished world has improved at an unprecedented rate in recent decades, even if economic growth hasn't."The biggest success of development" he writes" has not been making people richer but rather has been making things that really matter - things like health and education - cheaper and more widely available. The world , he said, had paid too much attention to economic numbers.
Sorry but it's not possible to link this article as it doesn't appear on either the Observer or New York Times websites, however while there is some danger in presenting the above out of context there does seem to be something important expressed here. In Western Europe the notion of economic growth, expressed in percentage terms has become the measurement by which success or failure, is judged, and it is the predominant means by which comparisons are made as to the economic health of nations.
But what if we assessed the nation by "things that really matter - things like health and education". Ah, you say but can we afford it? The UK is one of the half dozen richest nations in the world. If we can't afford it what are we spending our money on?
One of the mantra's of this government and previous administrations has been to find new meanings for the word "choice", linked with words such as "patient" or "parent" or attached to electricity or gas suppliers or telephone or broadband providers. When it comes down to it we think we have a choice at elections, and once upon a time we voted in representatives to make choices for us based on their manifestos, but not any more it seems. For we are all consumers now.
The point is that governments are in reality saying that because you are a consumer and because as a consumer you are more aspirational it is impossible, and by the way political suicide, to make choices for you. That is your responsibility. They are also, and this is the point, admitting that no country on earth is rich enough to satisfy each and every citizen/consumer. It is not our job to tell you not to buy an expensive imported car, or upgrade your PC, or limit your holiday expenditure.
So what happens if the country becomes a little less rich? Does the government maintain spending on those things that really matter? Of course not, because it's your choice. If you want first class health care you pay for it. If you want first class education for your kids you pay for it. If your kids want to go to university, you pay for it, or in reality they pay for it, but it's their choice after all. But to do so you must spend less on other things, which in these aspirational times is a hard choice. Haven't the income to do any of these things, the implication is that's your choice too.
Now what would happen if the country becomes a little less rich, but the government ceased to use the word "choice" as a covert excuse for letting things take their course, and said, these are the things that really matter and these are our and your priorities. No market in education or health, they are accessible to all irrespective of income, We as a country want to be measured by the things that really matter. Well to some this may sound like a nanny state, while to others it may sound like a fair and just society. Perhaps after all, choice isn't worth a dime.
