Managerialism v individualism

Although contemporary society is supposed to champion individualism, it often fails to do so in practice because the desires of the individual frequently clash with the smooth functioning of the managerial state.

A classic example of this is the modern state's attitude to owner-operated small businesses.

Despite the pro-small business rhetoric that we’ve been hearing since the late 70s, most modern liberal governments almost invariably consider small businesses a pain in the ass.

As DIY generalists, owner-operator businessmen and women, violate one of the primary tenants of economic theory, that people should specialise in one task if possible, since according to rational economic thinking, specialisation equals efficiency and small-scale multi-tasking doesn't.

Government bureaucracies also find educated specialists a lot easier to deal with. This is why government and big business get on so well. Both have large bureaucracies staffed by professional employees with specialised skills who can talk to each other in the same jargon-filled language. Subsequently government's in most western countries have been making life more difficult for small business, with increasing regulations, indirect taxes and new or expanding accident compensation levees. Some free business advice is now available, but it tends to be of the generic common-sense kind, which is often of limited use to those in specialised, technical fields.

The recent bailouts of big US and UK corporations in the financial sector, is only likely to add to the already high level of grievance felt by the western small business sector.

Interestingly, while governments in the individualist West have been steadily making life harder for small businesses, governments in communitarian Japan have been trying to make life easier for them, with specialist help for example in research and marketing, and in learning to use the latest technology.

This seems paradoxical from the perspective of western individualism -shouldn't collectivists who believe in tempering economic goals with social ones be anti-small business?

Well it does make sense if you take into account that small business is in many respects a communitarian activity, and that people often go into business for non-rational reasons.

People prefer working for themselves for all sorts of reasons; they don't get on with their co-workers, they want to work in a place of their own choosing rather than sit in traffic for hours, they don't have a great CV, they want to pass on a business to their children, and so on and so on.

Since Japan is more communitarian society than most western countries, it understands that rational managerialism can undermine social cohesion if pushed too far, so the country’s elites try to direct the goals of the bureaucracy towards the needs of society rather than re-mould society to fit the rational logic of the bureaucracy.

No doubt Japanese small business owners still have a lot of hassles with government bureaucracy, but at least they know that the bureaucracy isn't ideologically opposed to them.

Unlike westerners, the Japanese also have a more concrete, producerist mentality when it comes to the economy and they realise that in a post-industrial society, many people will struggle to find productive employment which adds real value to society.

Conversely, western elites seem to assume that laid off manufacturing workers can easily find steady, reasonably well-paid work in the service sector, even though much of what the service sector produces is non-essential distractions that people have to cut back on in a recession.

Another example of managerial opposition to practical individualism is secondary taxation. Since people who hold multiple jobs are an inconvenience to the state, it discourages people form taking on more than one job by overtaxing them and then making wait in hope for a tax rebate.

A similar bureaucracy first mentality exists in welfare departments, where, in New Zealand and Britain for example, those seeking short-term unemployment relief are treated like minor criminals, while long-term welfare recipients like solo parents and sickness beneficiaries are regarded as permanent wards of the state.

Peters' New Role

Peters’ New Role Winston Peter’s foreign affairs appointment in the new Government has been ridiculed by many political commentators in the mainstream media. Most pundits seem to believe that the nation’s international image will be severely tarnished by Peter’s politically incorrect antics and nationalist/populist reputation. However, few commentators seem to be asking the question- what’s in it for Peters and New Zealand First and what message should New Zealand really be sending to Asia?

In the Bolger government of 1996, Peter’s assumed the finance position but his nationalist position on key issues such as privatisation soon proved unacceptable to the National Party hierarchy. In retrospect, Peter’s has admitted that he underestimated the degree of difficulty in working closely with other parties in the new MMP environment. The present confidence and supply arrangement with Labour allows New Zealand First to have some influence over Labour’s initiatives in social policy, while Peter’s has the opportunity to peddle his influence on the international scene. This means that Clark is willing to put the brake on Labour’s social policy initiatives in exchange for continuing control over general economic policy where there is less disagreement with New Zealand First. Although New Zealand First has little direct involvement in policy-making it is in a strong position to act as a watchdog over Labour and keep the press informed about issues it deems to be of national interest. In immigration policy for example, New Zealand First is now in a stronger position to spot instances of procedural incompetence and excessive leniency by Labour politicians and government civil servants.

As treasurer in the 1996 National-NZ First government Peter’s was too distracted by tensions with the National party hierarchy to have much influence over any particular area of policy. In the present government he has a more focused role and a more realistic chance of influencing policy-makers and international opinion. The present arrangement with Labour also appears to be benefiting Ron Mark, arguably N.Z First’s second most influential politician. In the area of law and order Mark is already having a significant impact- notice the debate he has stimulated over raising the drinking age and in the governments new commitment to increase police numbers.

However, it is arguably Peter’s impact on international opinion that is the most important aspect of New Zealand First’s present arrangement with Labour. In the Asia- Pacific region Peter’s has a poor image because his support for limited immigration is conflated by the media into a general anti-Asian stance. This is somewhat ironic because most countries in East Asia also support limited immigration. Japan for example, has a highly restrictive immigration policy. Peter’s is no doubt trying to persuade Asian governments, and the Asian media, that New Zealand First supports increased trade with Asia and continuing opportunities for Asian students to study in New Zealand. Its also needs pointing out New Zealand First’s economic policy is more in tune with the economic policies of many East Asian countries, such as Malaysia and Korea. Since the Asian crash in 1997, many Asian countries have been sceptical of neo-liberal reforms and would like to see more countries in the region promoting ‘developmental’ economic policies. New Zealand’s poor R and D spending and low savings rate are hardly likely to strike a cord with East Asian economic policy-makers.

Many elements of the Asian media have a chip on their shoulder in regard to the immigration policies of Australia and New Zealand. This is especially true of the media in Malaysia and Singapore. The Singapore Times for example, often argues that Australia can take in many more immigrants and that it is still influenced by its previous ‘Whites Only’ Policy. Current immigration patterns to Australia and New Zealand do not show any clear bias against East Asian immigrants so the ‘Whites Only’ claim is largely unfounded.

Rarely mentioned in the Asian media are the environmental implications of large-scale immigration to Australia and New Zealand. Australia is an extremely arid country, which is struggling to balance the water needs of its farming and residential users. Australia’s thin soils and low topography make it especially vulnerable to problems like erosion, water pollution and excessive salt accumulation. New Zealand’s economy is heavily dependent on farming and tourism and these industries could also be undermined by a substantial population increase. In contrast to Australia, New Zealand is a mountainous country with a shortage of flat arable land and much of this is disappearing under urban development.

Politicians like Peters need to emphasis to Asian leaders that Australia and New Zealand are resource rich but environmentally vulnerable countries that need Asian markets for their products. From an Asian perspective, large scale Asian immigration into Australasia could compromise the region's ability to supply primary products to resource poor Asian markets and provide viable business opportunities for the East Asian Diaspora.