Recently Business New Zealand polled its members on initiatives they would like the next government to take.
Respondents expressed support for policies that were most aligned with those of National and ACT.
A 'Mood of the Boardroom' survey published in the New Zealand Herald this week reported that a majority of corporate leaders (nearly 90%) also considered the policies of the centre-right parties would be more effective than those of Labour in growing the economy and raising living standards.
Some politicians have responded by painting support for market-oriented policies as 'radical', 'hardline' and 'right wing'.
Such labels were often applied to the 1980s Labour government's liberalising reforms. They were misplaced: the reforms were motivated far more by the realisation that past policies had failed, and that orthodox economic analysis pointed to the need for less interventionist government and a greater role for private enterprise.
Twenty years later it is even clearer that New Zealand's policy reorientation was in line with the international mainstream, and with moves by governments on both the political 'left' and 'right'.
All OECD governments, without exception, and many others, most notably China and India, have opened up their economies, deregulated markets, moved state-owned business to the private sector, and cut high tax rates.
A recent study reports that for 23 OECD countries the average decline in the top personal tax rate was 22.3 percent in the period 1980-2001.
The most recent Fraser Institute economic freedom index ranks Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Luxembourg as the top 10 countries for economic freedom. In many of these countries, both governments of the left and right have been in office in the past 20 years. None is described internationally as having 'radical', 'hardline' policies.
There are no signs of a reversal of this general trend. After the collapse of the socialist regimes and following the Reagan and Thatcher reforms, some political movements (such as Tony Blair's Labour Party in the United Kingdom and Labour in New Zealand) espoused so-called 'third way' policies.
This language is seldom heard today. The freer 'anglosphere' economies (United Kingdom, Ireland, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - and possibly India should be added to this list) are outperforming the 'third way' European welfare states.
It is a safe bet that within the next decade Germany and some other European countries will be forced to move in a similar direction - regardless of which parties are in office.
Some of the manifestations of these trends have come from interesting quarters. Examples are the move towards flat rates of tax in several ex-Soviet Union countries, and the pressure for school choice (including education vouchers) among 'left wing' US think tanks and African-Americans.
These developments reflect an understanding that policies aimed at choice, competition and wealth creation do far more to help the poor than state welfare, control and redistribution.
A current priority of the Blair Labour government is to introduce more private sector involvement and 'internal markets' in areas like health, education and prison management.
Governments of all political persuasions are using the private sector to fund and operate infrastructure such as roads and water and sewerage. Federal and state Labor governments in Australia have gone down this path.
The Howard government in Australia is moving ahead with labour market deregulation, welfare reform and privatisation. Leaders in both the Liberal and Labor parties, and even the Australian trade union movement, are calling for cuts in high tax rates.
The advice of the OECD, which represents the views of its advanced country members, is in line with that of New Zealand business organisations.
Today it would be fair to claim that, internationally, policies of renationalisation and more 'hands on' government are contrary to mainstream directions. Business organisations, reflecting the views of their members, believe they harm New Zealand's growth prospects.
Amongst business organisations, this does not translate into an attachment to any political party, unlike the trade union movement and teacher organisations which are openly partisan.
Representative business organisations today are much more focused on what's best for New Zealand at large, not self-servingly on narrow business interests.
The approach is not 'What's good for General Motors (ie business) is good for America'. Clearly corporate welfare could help some businesses but at the expense of the general community. The business sector is now generally opposed to subsidies and protection, and understands that what's best for the economy is also best for business in the longer run.
What ultimately counts is the state of public understanding and opinion on directions for a successful country. This is influenced by arguments based on sound analysis and by national and international experience.
In democracies, governments change their minds in response to changes in public opinion, or electorates change governments.
That's the way it should be.
Roger Kerr is the executive director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable.
© Copyright; Foundation for Economic Growth and various authors. Individual authors retain their own copyright.
Top of Page
|
