A welcome new initiative is the newly-formed “Growth Commission” that will analyze policy suggestions to assess their likely long-term impact on the UK’s GDP. This is useful because all too often policies are proposed without consideration of whether they will adversely affect the UK’s ability to grow its economy. Instead of cost-benefit analysis being performed, there is a tendency to consider only the benefits the new policy might bring, without looking at the costs it could impose.
The new Growth Commission aims to fill that gap, drawing on the work of more than a dozen expert economists. There was a similar, but not identical, initiative under the Presidency of George H Bush, and headed from the White House by his Vice-President, Dan Quayle. It was called the Council on Competitiveness, and its mission was to study every new initiative emerging from Congress and the bureaucracy, and to assess its likely impact on American competitiveness.
Well-meaning and possibly worthwhile initiatives would be set forward without any thought to the costs they might impose on American business, or how less competitive they might make it. The Vice-President’s Council on Competitiveness changed that because the initiatives would have to be examined before they could proceed, and changes were made and amendments inserted to lessen the impact on competitiveness that initiatives might otherwise make.
It met with strong criticism on with the American Left, largely because it kicked many of their costly proposals into the long grass. Some called it “the roach motel of congressional legislation.” This was because a popular series of TV ads at the time featured a box called a roach motel into which cockroaches were attracted by the scent, but once inside were killed by the poison. The voice of Muhammad Ali accompanied the ads saying, “They check in, but they don’t check out.” The same fate was alleged to happen to Congressional initiatives.
One difference is that the Growth commission will look at likely effects on growth, not just on competitiveness, although there is overlap. The big difference is that the Quayle Commission had real powers emanating from the Vice-President’s office. The Growth Commission is independent and outside of government and has no similar powers. While it is an immensely useful body to oversee what Departments and the bureaucracy are doing, it might be more effective if it were allowed to operate from within Downing Street, with direct access and input to decision makers.