Box 3.1 The ever-changing scene
THE POLITICAL CRISISnoticeably apparent in the OECD
during the 1960s is still evident. The issue here is not
political conflict so much as the adverse knock-on effects
of being ineffectively administered. There is always the
hope, in every democratic society, that self-adjusting
factors will apply, that ‘bad’ government will be replaced
with ‘good’ and that sound new developments will com-
pensate for previously malignant projects. Yet the avail-
able ‘centrist’ alternatives at election time usually come
down to ‘Pepsi or Coke’ with some fringe attractions
offered by minor diversionary parties. This is all much
worse when the political prophets are proved wrong,
their faith in growth scenarios misplaced, the outcomes
calamitous and when they resort to a sell-out – less gov-
ernment mediation and more market freedom.
IDENTITY CRISIShas always been a feature of modern Anglo
New World societies. Ceremonial incorporation of
‘native’ and ‘settler’ values is creditworthy, but a practical
confusion between materialist and traditional values and
practices abounds. For example, it is easily possible in
New World communities to identify personalities sur-
rounded by all the trappings of modern consumerism,
who also tentatively align with conservation; conscien-
tiously putting out bundles of old newspaper for recy-
cling, and motoring up to the local bottle bank. In contrast
many of those espousing traditional ‘indigenous’ values
are notmotivated to put out any newspapers for recy-
cling or to drop off their empties! Balance, and the self-
sufficiency ideal, reside uneasily within the New World
competitive-consumerist psyche. A few individuals make
an attempt to achieve a personal ‘balance’ between eco-
nomics and ecology; most do not really try; and for the
majority the issues and values involved are a confusion
beyond their range of motivation to comprehend, analyse,
or act upon.
CLASS CONFLICTis at base a crisis arising from the trinity
of discord between the formal (taxpaying), dependent
(benefit-receiving), and the informal (illicit economy),
components of society. The results are tax avoidance and
stock-jobbing swindles in the formal sector, beneficiary
abuse from the dependent sector, and a vast amount of
fiscal leakiness and community loss from an illicit sector
cornered by a succession of desperate ‘do we eat or
heat?’ situations. What started out during the pre-1960
era of fullish employment as distinctions based on levels
of economic income, has grown into a class conflict
between a smug moneyed class and a cowered under-
class, with neither caring much about the other, and with
both trying to increase their leverage on the economic
system.
A TECHNOLOGICAL DILEMMAdivides people across a wide
philosophical spectrum. Some have a vision of a society
which they believe ought to hunker down to food
self-sufficiency, longer-term recycling, local materials
house-building, and home entertainment; others welcome
new energy-harnessing technologies, cheap and universal
communications, and above all espouse a belief for the
power of new ideas and technologies. In fact there is a
role for ‘both’ selectively, and no need for a dilemma to
exist.
A MANAGEMENT CONFLICTcan be identified where the
well-heeled blame the victims, the victims blame the well-
heeled, and government veers off in the contradictory
directions of saving and spending. The ‘savings’ arise from
beneficiary-targeting, which is sometimes successful, and
benefit-indexing, which is often unsuccessful; along with
more efficient and thus more fair tax-gathering, which
cannot of course be gainsaid. The ‘spending’ emphasis is,
of the two, the more nightmarish: state management of
state capital lacks adherence to private sector principles
of ‘utility maximization’ because there is no fear, within
governments, of the spectre of the low yields which haunt
the managers of private capital.A TERRITORIAL DILEMMAborn of delusions about city-state
grandeur has led to a discordance, which still exists,
between central-local-regional levels (and, particularly,
between central and regional levels) of public policy-
making. This is particularly the case with centrally con-
ceived ‘think big’ projects imposed upon discerning and
perceptive communities without due consultation, and
worse, without an open assessment of the likely social,
environmental and economic downstream effects. But
even more serious than debt from macro projects is the
knee-capping of local and regional confidence, along with
an erosion of community values. Simple resource
plunder, at an uncaring national level, remains a significant
territorial threat and policy obstacle to harmony.