3way Reduction in working time etc.

Mark Bryan (Mark.Bryan@btinternet.com)
Tue, 04 Aug 1998 15:11:04 +0100

The Third Way debate attempts to define a programme applying progressive
values in a changed world. So far I think there has been too little
discussion about the exact nature of these changes, some of which do
stem from technological developments, but others of which were brought
about by blatantly political choices from a right-wing agenda. There
seems to be an assumption that they are set in stone and we just have to
make a virtue out of necessity by adapting to them. Thus the right still
sets the terms of the debate. One example is the challenge of
“globalisation”, which must be met by increased competitiveness rather
than by working with other governments to establish some form of global
governance aimed at a fairer distribution of rewards. I think that a
more fruitful approach would be to examine the new features of the
economy/society for potential which can be harnessed positively, given
the political will. After all we live in a world which has never been
wealthier. So we should have more latitude than ever before. If it seems
that we have not, then we maybe need to question the way we organise the
creation and distribution of wealth. In this sense, one of the main
changes of the past two decades, which needs to be reversed, is a loss
of collective nerve by our societies.

More specifically, I agree with Walter Stanners that a key issue in
economics now is the reduction in the relative importance of the
material goods producing sector. This trend has been pointed out by
writers such as Diane Coyle and Charles Leadbeater, but, again, usually
in terms of changes in the marketplace which just have to be adapted to.
The implications and possibilities are rarely discussed.

The last two decades have seen a critical shift from tangible, material
goods to weightless, knowledge-based goods and services. This is because
productivity increases mean that society can now produce the wherewithal
for a decent life in a fraction of the normal working week. In order to
maintain economic activity (and ultimately profits) the rest of the time
is devoted to the “weightless” activity. In Diarmid Weir’s terms, there
is now more froth than beer! The decline of planned / Keynesian
economics can be viewed from this angle: when most activity consists of
production to meet pre-existing, tangible needs for physical goods
(whether it be housing, cars or fridges), rational organisation is
likely to be effective, i.e. factories can be built to employ workers
who are paid to buy the goods they are producing. Macroeconomic measures
to increase consumer demand will also feed directly into activity
levels. Things are different in a more weightless economy. Demand is
much more fleeting and ephemeral; much of it has to be created by
marketing techniques. A planner would not know what to plan for. On the
supply side there is a higher premium on knowledge-based skills and
flexibility, so workers have to be highly trained before they are of
much use.

Some of the disadvantages, which can only intensify, to this state of
affairs are:
(i) From being a way of satisfying genuine needs, consumption becomes an
almost social duty. Activities which were previously carried out on
purely human level are turned into commodities (note for example the
elevation of paid childcare over mothers staying at home). The
non-monetary sphere is eroded and corporate culture expands.
(ii) The wages of unskilled workers fall and, depending on the
government in power, are more or less subsidised by the state.
(iii) An increasing share of wealth is taken by the technical and
managerial elite which controls knowledge and capital.
(iv) As wealth is concentrated at the centres of market power, the
scramble to secure a fair share for all produces stress, long hours etc.

What changes can be made to remedy this situation? Well, the good news
is that we have never been richer and the mainstream market economy is
extremely efficient at producing, if not distributing, physical wealth.
Which is precisely why we only need to spend part of our time in it.
Ultimately a huge reduction in working hours is possible and desirable
and potentially very popular with the electorate. As Ruth Lister
remarks, we need to put redistribution - including time and different
forms of work - back on the agenda. The free time released under such
proposals could be precisely that, i.e. to be used on freely-determined
activities. Alternatively, as Stuart White has indicated there are other
forms of economic participation. They include the voluntary sector,
local schemes using separate currencies (LETs), credit unions and
co-operatives, which may be better suited to providing some local goods
and services, while keeping control in the locality. The challenge is to
devise policies which place clear limits on the extent of the market
economy and, crucially, transfer revenues from it to be distributed in
the other sectors (possibly in the form of a citizen’s/participation
income, or basic capital grants).

Would not policies based on these ideas form a distinctive Third Way and
enjoy the support of a big majority of citizens? This certainly seems to
be true in France, where the government is honouring a manifesto pledge
to reduce the working week to 35 hours by 2000. Does anyone have ideas
on how to promote and implement these sorts of policies over here?

Mark Bryan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to 3way, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing