Alan Finlayson
Dept. of Politics,
The Queen's University of Belfast
Earlier this year members of the Nexus UK-policy discussion list debated,
argued, defined, re-defined, accepted and rejected the concept of 'The Third
Way'. On May 7th that discussion was taken to Downing Street for the benefit
of the Prime Minister and his policy unit. The on-line debate had been
impressively and fairly summarised, then circulated amongst those invited to
the seminar. Present were a number of those initially invited to contribute to
the debate, a few headline academics, a sprinkling of MP's, and a number of
people identified only by their participation in the on-line discussion. As one
of these the Nexus co-ordinators asked me to write a report of the event to
send out to the participants in the original discussion. Since it would not be
possible for me to summarise everything that was said I have chosen instead
to report, and comment on, some of the things I thought were interesting or
important. As such, this is hardly an objective or neutral report of the event
(whatever that might be). No doubt others who have also been asked to send
in reports saw things differently. There is no reason for our discussion about
the 'third way' to cease with the formal part of the debate and resulting
seminar. This report is my part of that continuing argument.
The seminar began, after a welcome from Tony Blair, with opening
presentations from Julian Le Grand, David Halpern
and Charles Leadbeater. Le Grand, in keeping with some of his submissions
to the original discussion, tried to define the third way by commenting on
what the government has actually done. He distinguished it from neo-
liberalism and social democracy comparing these in terms of their aims (what
they want to do), methods (how they aim to do it) and motivations (by which
he seemed to mean their theory of human nature or assumptions about the
'goodness' or 'badness' of people). He characterised social democracy as
aiming for universalism and equality of outcome by the use of public finance
and public provision. Neo-liberalism was understood as characterised by the
aim of efficiency via private provision and free markets. Social democracy, Le
Grand argued, sees people as 'knights', neo-liberalism sees them as 'knaves'.
The third way sees people as both and designs policy accordingly. It employs
carrots and sticks in order to utilise knavish behaviour for knightly ends.
This metaphor of knights and knaves is most interesting. Perhaps the
third way concerns the creation of a chivalrous capitalism. This might explain
the drift in the Home Office to a culture of honour and shame as opposed to
the culture of guilt and blame that has hitherto underpinned much of
Northern European capitalism. But in essence, as I understood it, Le Grand's
third way is about being pragmatic in terms of the delivery of state services. It
turns on core values labelled 'equal opportunity', 'accountability',
'responsibility' and 'community' but the state is understood as capable only of
encouraging these things. It cannot be a substitute for them.
In the next presentation David Halpern summarised his argument
about partitioned responsibility (see Nexus Library). Here the third way
entails a particular conception of the division of responsibility between the
state and the individual. The individual is responsible for those risks they
choose to take (e.g. smoking) while the state is responsible for those areas or
aspects of life in which we suffer from 'brute luck'. Halpern hopes that this
concept can act as a bridge between theories or principles and actual
policy implementation. It could be the kind of rule-of-thumb that
privatisation or the idea of the free market was for Thatcherism. In attempting
to specify the appropriate realms of responsibility for individual and state we
assume that the individual is responsible other than where they are in
difficulty through no fault of their own.
This is perhaps an attractively simple principle but it is subject to some
difficulties. How does one actually distinguish between an action that is
entirely my own free choice and one that is bad luck? What happens when
not helping me recover from the consequences of my own freely chosen
actions harms others and foists bad luck on them? What if the way to take
responsibility for those others is to take responsibility for someone who is
irresponsible? Furthermore, Halpern suggested that being born poor is a
result of brute luck and therefore the state should have some responsibility
for alleviating the negative conditions that flow from this. But this is a
political, perhaps ethical, judgement on Halpern's part and not one that
necessarily follows from his argument. Indeed, denying that poverty has
anything to do with luck was an important part of the ideology of
Thatcherism. Are the poor in poverty as a result of bad luck, because they are
feckless and work-shy, or because it is a structural outcome of an economy
based on casualised labour markets and the maximisation of dividends
returned to shareholders? There is an ethical and political question to be faced
before responsibility can be 'partitioned' and it raises questions related to a
fundamental understanding of how our present society works.
The desire to re-think responsibility and to make clear that the state is
not automatically there to pick up after us is, I would suspect, an attempt to
respond to, and perhaps move on from, the New Right critique of state
intervention as 'nannying' or forming of dependency. If Halpern is
responding to this charge by partly accepting the critique, and not taking the
simple route of falling back on more traditional justifications of state support,
this is perhaps indicative of the sorts of thinking the third way entails.
Next, Charles Leadbeater, in a more general presentation, considered
the third way in terms of a number of questions such as the cultural politics of the
third way, its status as a political project or social movement, third way
ethics, economics, institutions and so forth. Leadbeater identified the roots of
the third way in the changing patterns of the economy, specifically a shift to
human capital and knowledge based industries. For Leadbeater it is great
cause for celebration that Microsoft has opened a base in Cambridge.
Microsoft represents a new kind of firm which is qualitatively different from
the old 'Fordist' factories of mass production. This new type of labour is more
flexible and decentralised and, being based on people's knowledge and
creative skills, offers the potential for a more open and fluid ('dynamic and
efficient') society, culture and economy. The third way is about creating the
skills for this kind of economy and capitalising on the cultural changes it
encourages so as to foster some sort of more open ended lifestyle. I
recommend that anyone interested in pursing this sort of argument consult
back issues of Marxism Today from about 1987 onwards.
There then followed a very open ended discussion. Unfortunately
many contributions didn't directly address the issues raised by the
presentations. Perhaps even more unfortunately they didn't address the
questions raised in the summary of the on-line debate (which got somewhat sidelined).
Since the discussion didn't take the form of directly offering or
requiring clarification from those who gave presentations it did, to my mind,
drift a little. Lacking clear focus, discussion tended to circle above the, as yet
empty term, 'third way'. However, as Tony Blair pointed out, merely
introducing the term has opened up a space in which there has been, and will
continue to be, some debate and discussion. And there were a number of
thoughts or points introduced in the discussion that could be followed up.
For example, Ruth Kelly MP raised the issue of the 'good life' and what
it might now be for individuals in our society. This is often a pretty central
component of political philosophies and it is gratifying that members of our
legislature might actually be thinking about the sort of vision of life to which
they aim. Michael Jacobs (of the Fabian Society) followed with a point about
how people now 'make their own lives' and aren't as constrained as they once were.
On the evidence of this aspect of the
discussion the third way (in some accordance with Leadbeater) could be seen
as this focus on lifestyle and life options since these have been opened up (the
argument might run) by the decentralised economy. This of course raises the
question of equality (or social inclusion) since not everybody is as able as
everyone else to choose their own lifestyle from a catalogue. These issues of
'lifestyle', 'good life', 'human nature' and in some ways equality were
responded to in a more sceptical comment by David Marquand who
suggested that we already have a vision of 'human nature' and it is of people
as creative, constantly learning and developing.
This is reminiscent of those varieties of liberalism that place a premium
on the individual as an entity that ought to be enabled to develop to the
fullest possible potential. Thus David Marquand's comments may be in some
degree of accordance with the philosophical liberalism that seems to
underpin much of third way discussion. Indeed at times the debate did seem
to be between varieties of liberal with some leaning more towards neo-
liberalism and others stronger on social liberal principles. But whether
nineteenth or twentieth century liberals I got the sense that there was
convergence on the view that individuals are primary and that they must be
freed up or empowered so as to be the kind of creative ('dynamic and
efficient') units that will carry forward the modernisation of the universe.
Those concerned with developing a third way should dwell on this
question of the individual. Indeed, in the original discussion some did
interrogate the concept of the person at work here. Certainly I get the
impression that New Labour prefers to think of society as made up of
individuals rather than made up of different groups or blocs. It seems not to
like organisations or structures that get between government and individual.
Hence there is an emphasis on reinvigorating individuals involvement
through forms of 'direct' contact such as referendums, consultation bodies,
focus groups etc. at the same time as limitations are placed on the power of
intermediary representative bodies. This is why there is an apparent paradox
of increased centralisation at the same time as decentralisation and
constitutional reform. It is important to recognise that there may be a
difference between enhancing individual choice and democratisation. The
latter thinks of people specifically as citizens who are changed by
participation in public political processes, who may form various sorts of
collective alliance within that public sphere and will negotiate or compete
accordingly. This is distinct from a kind of direct individualisation that tends
towards a kind of marketisation where people become merely consumers of
state services exercising simple choice (yes or no, entry or exit) and are not in
a position to question premises or reformulate propositions. This tends to
lead to a blunt and populist political culture rather than a nuanced and multi-
faceted democratic one. It is not, in my view, either dynamic or efficient and it
certainly contradicts the aim of 'reinvigorating civic responsibility'.
Which brings us to the question of 'hard-edged economic policy'.
Leadbeater had raised the question of what sort of economic theory the third
way embodies. Prof. Giddens seemed to suggest that the third way did not
particularly need an economic theory. If I understood him correctly this is
because the global economy is already transforming social life and freeing
things up. What governments must do is flow with it. This raises another
crucial question about New Labour's project - is the economy understood as
something that has changed so much, and taken on such a life of its own, that
we should simply see politics as the technocratic process of preparing
populations for it? Or do we think that the state (be it a nation-state, federal
state or whatever) necessarily has a role in shaping the economy according to
the perceived interests of the people?
Perhaps the most succinct attempt at defining the third way came from
Charles Leadbeater. He claimed that the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement
was the most third way thing the government has done. This is because, to
work, it has to be inclusive and it involves a change of identity. Since I live in
Northern Ireland this caught my attention. In as much as the
peace agreement involves or requires a change of identity this is not a small
or casual thing. And it doesn't have that much to do with the Labour
Government (though certainly Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam deserve
maximum credit for their achievement). The political agreement is a welcome
instance of politicians
catching up with the population. Now, the sense that government has to catch
up with the population may well be very third way but it has to be carefully
understood. Which brings us to the question of inclusivity. Populations are
not homogenous and a government can't aim to 'catch up' or be in line with
everyone. Certainly the Northern Irish peace agreement does not aim to
please everyone. It can't and this is why it works. It was brought about by the
exclusion of the intransigent Paisely camp and by explicitly treating a
particular political outlook as no longer viable. Isn't this how politics often
works? You have an idea of what you want to do. Then you assess the kind of
direction society is heading in and decide which parts of that society you can
work with and those with which you can't. Then you build up a large enough
coalition of support to leave behind that opposition and start to try and drag
society in the direction you want to take it.
It is surely right to recognise that circumstances have changed. The
world is not the same as it was just twenty years ago and we have to
re-address certain issues. It is surely right to seek to open up society, free
things up a little and even to seek to capitalise on and foster certain 'changes
in identity' brought about by changes in economy and society (changes which
you can choose to try and further, limit or redirect). But this cannot go under
the banner of absolute inclusivity. In politics not everyone can be on the same
side. Change is being built on in Northern Ireland because of a redefinition of
the groups that make up friends and enemies. Similarly the third way needs
to make clear just what aspects of change it does embrace and which it rejects.
It has to specify to whom it will say no. At the moment, for a number of
people, the third way appears to be saying no only to those positioned to its
left and to regard some interesting and useful ideas as redundant. Will the
city profiteers also be told no? It is this which will define the true
contours of 'the project' and of the third way.
The seminar was inconclusive but this is not in itself a bad thing. As a
result of my attendance I am both more and less convinced. There is a
recognition on the part of the government that ideas matter, that
principles and philosophical underpinnings are important for any serious
long-term political project and the people involved are genuine. And in as much as
this debate took place there is
reason to be impressed. Not everyone there was 'on-message'. Furthermore,
there is certainly, on the part of Tony Blair, a very strong conviction that this
is a 'moment' of some kind, that the 'centre-left' globally is re-shaping and re-
thinking. Something is happening here though I am not sure anyone knows
quite what it is.
But there are a number of questions, some of them core conceptual
questions, that still need to be considered. To rethink the relationships of
responsibility between the state and the individual entails thinking anew
about what we think a state is and how we understand individuals. Do we
really believe that the economy can be left to run along by itself and that it
will, of its own accord, have primarily benign and liberating effects? Do we
really believe that the state doesn't have a role any more? If we want to give
power back to people we need to think about what empowerment means and
be careful that we are not simply following a Thatcherite notion of
empowerment understood as market choice - the philosophical liberalism
needs a little more spice. And do we think society is now best understood as
made up of post-modern individuals making up their lives as they go along,
free from economic, political and cultural constraints and no longer tied to
traditional social constituencies and value-systems (though I don't think this
is in fact what postmodernists ever actually argued)?
Perhaps in London the world really does look like it is made up of free-
floating individuals redesigning their identities, swarming into the creative
industries and busily making themselves dynamic and efficient. Perhaps in
London the world is one global marketing opportunity. I am not sure it looks
or feels like this everywhere else. Is it the 'historic mission' of New
Labour to bring the rest of the UK into line with this metropolitan vision and
to make it fit for modernised global competition? Is this what the hard choices
are for? Or is it the intention to find out what those who aren't part of the
'fast-forward future' want and need and would like to do? Perhaps
between the fatal vapidity of pragmatism and the dry purity of leftist
utopianism there is another third way waiting to be found.
----------------------
Alan Finlayson
A.Finlayson@qub.ac.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing