I think there is a very important issue being raised here, as to what
the "Third Way" is. The Labour party of the 70s and 80s was
uncomfortable stating any behavioral preferences, except to be open to
the "new" and "changing," language which appears in a number of recent
messages. The Thatcherites wanted to make very clear what normative
behavior was, but not provide any assistance in conforming to it. One
interpretation of "New Labour" (or New Democrat) ideology is social
support for widely accepted social norms, such as marriage, work,
obedience to law, participation in civic life, etc. Welfare states
inevitably have effects on behavior: no set of institutions spending as
much as the welfare state does could avoid doing so. It seems worth
being relatively clear what behavior we would like to see the welfare
state encourage, even if we aren't willing to make it mandatory.
This leads to a second issue: what CAN government policy effect? It is
one thing to say that there seems to be some impact of policy on
behavior: it is quite another to say that we know how to change policy
to lead to some other behavioral pattern. Where work or law-obedience is
concerned, evidence from the US suggests that policy CAN have a large,
conscious effect. I see little evidence that policy can consciously
change marital patterns, except (maybe) over long periods of time
through signaling, leading to cultural change.
So, two questions: is social support for widely accepted norms a
reasonable definition of the Third Way, and within that context, what
CAN government actually do.
steven m. teles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consutants On-Line Publishing