An honest politician

An honest politician or Why we need to target outcomes

Michael Lind quotes Jean-Claude Juncker.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of the tax haven Luxembourg who became the president of the European Commission from 2014 to 2019, described how the European Council systematically expanded its authority by stealth: We decree something, then float it and wait some time to see what happens. If no clamor occurs . . . because most people do not grasp what had been decided, we continue—step by step, until the point of no return is reached. Michael Lind, in an excerpt from his book The New Class War, quoted here.

The quote goes a long way to explaining the wide, and widening, gap between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. Our policymaking system is just too complex, protracted and boring for anyone other than powerful people, or their paid lobbyists, to follow and influence. That means, on the one side of the gap: politicians, bureaucrats and big business. And on the other, ordinary people and small businesses.

We are not heading toward a more simplified policymaking system. Society and the environment are not becoming easier for the public to comprehend. The trend is toward more complexity and, therefore, more opportunity for powerful interests to influence policy in their favour. The world economy might shrink as a result of, say, the pandemic, or climate change, or some other disaster. But there no indication that the rich and powerful will voluntarily relinquish any of their share. The future, then, might seem to be bleak: even greater inequality and, quite possibly, mass impoverishment.

I suggest that one way of avoiding such a miserable scenario is to re-orientate policymaking in such a way that most of us can understand it. Our current systems emphasise personality, image, spending pledges, legislation and organisational structures.These have in common one thing: they have nothing to do with outcomes that are meaningful to ordinary people.

Social Policy Bonds are a possible way in which we can express our policy goals in ways that people can understand and, in so doing, participate in their formulation and setting their relative priorities. So, for instance, rather than look at the sums spent on a health service, or at the numbers of people tested (or 'tested' - some of the results are spurious) for covid-19, or the quantity of protective (or 'protective'...) equipment acquired by a country, or other micro-targets, we would focus on the health of citizens, and target that for improvement. Social Policy Bonds would work by contracting out the achievement of our health goals to the market - which would include government bodies, so long as they are efficient. But the important first step would be to define our health goals, and let investment flow according to our health targets. My piece here gives more detail.

The great advantages of Social Policy Bonds are twofold. One, the market will reward only the most efficient approaches to achieving society's health goals. Two, a bond regime would require that we have explicit, transparent, broad, long-term goals that would be understood, and contributed to, by any members of the public who wish to get involved. That, perhaps even more than greater efficiency, would be a worthwhile benefit. It would certainly help avoid the cynicism of a Juncker, and the outrage that his world view—widespread I am sure among our leaders—ought to elicit.