When people's wishes clash with vested interests it's the vested
interests (aka 'the deep state'; aka the 'elites') that win every time. Our political
systems are too complex, arcane or corrupt for ordinary people to stand a
chance. One result is obvious: ever-rising income and wealth
inequality. Another is learned helplessness.
Voting makes little difference. And, while we don't really know the intentions of the people in power, I suspect that whoever they are doesn't make much difference. The vested interests are too powerful. They have perpetuated a policymaking process that effectively excludes influence from people outside their exalted circle. They have weaponised the complexity and obscurity of our systems of government for selfish ends.
They can get away with this because our political discourse centres on sound-bites, personality, and image. Actual policymaking is an entirely distinct process: much of it focuses on the structures and funding of government bodies, law and regulation; all of which are opaque to non-professionals - which is to say, ordinary people. The public. The rest of us. The only people who now really understand policymaking are those who are paid to do so, and the only people who influence it are those who have the millions of dollars necessary to pay them.You might even think the system has been specifically designed to keep ordinary citizens out of it. The barriers to entry into the world policymaking are high, and the public is almost totally demoralised.
I suggest that we change this by centering our policymaking discussions on broad outcomes that are meaningful to ordinary people. Instead of focusing on funding arrangements, institutional structures, legal manouevres and other arcana, our politicians should articulate society's wishes in ways that we can understand and influence.
Meaningful outcomes: they form one essential element of the Social Policy Bond idea. The other is the injection of market incentives into their achievement: rewarding those who achieve our goals according to their efficiency in actually achieving them. The idea might sound outlandish at first hearing: it would entail that politicians contract out the solution of our social and environmental problems to investors. But, under a bond regime, government would help guide and articulate society's wishes - something that democratic governments are quite good at doing, and government would still raise the revenue for their achievement. Only their achievement would be subject to the market, which economic theory and all the evidence suggest is the most efficient way of allocating society's scarce resources. No doubt the Social Policy Bond idea could do with some discussion and refinement. But the real question is: what is the alternative? To continue as we are doing, where the gap between vested interests and ordinary people grows ever wider, risks, in my view, social collapse.
For more about Social Policy Bonds see the Social Policy Bonds homepage
