Adam Smith Institute

Europe's favourite think tank website
  • Narrow screen resolution
  • Wide screen resolution
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size
Taming leviathan Print E-mail
Written by Tom Clougherty   
Friday, 03 October 2008

Daniel Finkelstein had a great article in The Times yesterday, talking about how the "vast jamboree of special interest groups" present at the party conferences demonstrate the "malignant growth" of the state:

"All around the fringe can be found... public sector organisations holding meetings to persuade taxpayers to give them more money, meetings that are - here's the good bit - paid for by the taxpayers that are being lobbied. Paid for by you, in other words, in order to persuade yourself."

He goes on to list some of the organisations that he came across at the Conservative conference. It takes a full four paragraphs, and that's just a start. As he says:

"I am attempting instead to show how big and complicated the State has become, and just how many parts of it are now involved in protecting their own existence..."

The implication of all this, which Finkelstein realizes, is that talk of government 'tightening its belt' will never amount to much. You need to work out what the government is for, and then get rid of surplus functions.

So what should the British government be doing? For me, it's not a long list:

  • Law and order: the state should protect individuals against direct harm from others, and enforce contracts.
  • Defence and security: emphasis on the word defence, as opposed to costly foreign intervention.
  • Public health: i.e. sanitation and preventing the spread of communicable diseases, not telling people they can't smoke, drink, or whatever.
  • Infrastructure: ensuring adequate transport and energy supplies (but leaving provision to the market as much as possible).
  • Funding schools: but not running them.
  • Welfare: get people to contribute as much as they can, but guarantee a basic income and minimum standard of healthcare.
  • Social services: make sure the young, the old and the mad are looked after.
  • Sound money: I've lost faith in central bankers so – short of competing currencies – maybe a return to the gold standard would be a good idea.

Confine government to those activities (which are still more extensive than many would like) and I suspect you could get rid of almost all QUANGOs and regulators, half the government departments, and a very sizeable chunk of public spending.

Comments (11)Add Comment
...
written by Mark Wadsworth, October 03, 2008
Seems like a good list to me. But I think you have to split it up, conceptually at least into 'core functions', 'redistribution' and 'subsidising merit goods'.

Do you include refuse collection in 'Public Health'? Is this list this just for central government or does this include local councils responsibilities as well, i.e. would you have another (hopefully much shorter) list for local councils?
...
written by Oli Rhys, October 03, 2008
The role of government should be even simpler than your simple list - but it will never happen as there are no lobby groups dedicated to making government smaller - who would pay them?!
...
written by david gibsn, October 03, 2008
Law and Order...and Defence and Security would do me..

Welfare should have nothing to do with the state...nor education...nor health....

...
written by dave, October 03, 2008
As a beneficiary of the "free" University education in the 60's I think there is a great argument for state investment in "tertiary" education. I would not have had this opportunity under the current regime and as the first in my family to go to university this was a true example of "social mobility" along with many of the other "working class" students I shared the experience with.

I do not agree with the current philosophy of 50% attendance at University because that is a devaluation of academic excellence and a mis labelling of true vocational, skills or craft development education.

What I would like to see instead is a real "equality of opportunity" in providing a training grant to each 18-21 year old which can be used to contribute towards everything from day-release for basic skills education to a medical undergraduate. Any unused grant can be carried forward for up to 5 years and if the grant is inadequate then they can use an appropriate student loan scheme to top up.

I believe much of the reason for our poor skills base is that small employers have an impossible burden with providing adequate skills and knowledge development, or a fear that once they have trained someone another employer will come along and reap the rewards of their investment.

This to my mind is just an extension of the support ASI gives to the ideas of funding, but not supplying, primary and secondary education. Let the market rule on supply but help small businesses and individuals improve their knowledge and skills in a dynamic and needs driven way not by "fashion of the moment" which by the time the policy makers have made their decsions is probably no longer relevant.
Multifaceted Leviathan
written by David Blackie, October 03, 2008
One of the organisations mentioned by Daniel Finkelstein is the British Council. This organisation is not simply publicly funded, with its officers enjoying civil service pensions and other benefits, but it is also a registered charity, it enjoys diplomatic status abroad including operating out of diplomatic premises, and it is free to use all that as a base for commercial operations in competition, at home and abroad, with genuine enterprise. Much of its energies are very understandably focused on preserving its unique set of privileges, which taken together mean that we not only pay handsomely to keep the organisation in the style to which it has become accustomed, but also reduce revenues to the Exchequer for ourselves and our friends overseas.
List is waaay too long
written by flix, October 03, 2008
but it's impossible to redefine govt., except in the aftermath of a revolution..... best way is to leave the question open but decentralize everything (like Swiss cantons) and let competition and experimentation show the way.
Well...
written by Blog Administrator, October 03, 2008
I was expecting people to say that my list was too long. And honestly, I agree with them. But I was trying to come up with a realistic list of the functions the UK government could be restricted to, not an ideological statement of what the state is for.

To Mark: this list is meant for all levels of government, not just Whitehall. I was including refuse collection in public health, but perhaps I should have put it in a separate category with maintaining public spaces. (Again, I think that most public space should be privatized in one way or another – but that's a different story).

As far as localism goes, yes, I think political power should be as decentralized as possible, so many of the functions on my list would fall to local government.
Small Government
written by Anonymous, October 03, 2008
Core function of the government:

1. Law and order (includes regulation)
2. Defense and security
3. Immigration and Border control
4. Investments in Infrastructure
...
written by Mark Wadsworth, October 03, 2008
SG, that is a good list of core functions, being a subset of 'things that only the State CAN do' and 'things that the State can do that ADD value'.

Caveat to number 4, the State should only invest in infrastructure IF it is inconceivable that The Free Market would do so AND the cost thereof can be recouped via higher tax receipts, in particular Land Value Tax receipts (being the best measure of whether infrastructure 'adds value').

Stuff like ID cards, 24 hour surveillance etc are obviously things that only the State CAN do, but these things cost far more than any net benefits minus disbenefits that they bring. Ergo they are not core functions in the purist sense.

The next categories are 'redistribution' and 'subsidising merit goods'. Education vouchers could fall into either category, of course.
Small Government
written by Anonymous, October 03, 2008
Minimalist list:

1. Law and Order (maintaining Rule of Law and Supremacy)
2. Defence and security
3. Be under democratic and constitutional control

I assume things like schools, public health, social services, courts can be provided by private NON-PROFIT organisations and transport & energy provided by private FOR-PROFIT enterprise.

Point 3, would be extend so that no central government is needed, decisions made by local government and with regular election for local government.

Welfare is a complex topic though could done using a voucher scheme (for example school vouchers), some may be provided in a form of insurance service available from a private sector. Alternatively, this could be decided by the local government and the voters (as part of point 3)
subsidising merit goods and redistribution
written by Anonymous, October 03, 2008
Funding for subsidising merit goods:
Education Services (purely for economic reasons)
Emergency Service (like fire service)

Redistribution done under Citzen Income[1] due to low administration cost and low fraud risk .

1. http://www.citizensincome.org

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

busy
 

About the ASI

The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog. For further information, click here.

Join our email list

Keep up-to-date with the latest events, reports and information from the Adam Smith Institute by joining our fortnightly email list. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any point. Just enter your email address here: 


Support the ASI

Enter Amount: