Effective government ministers will deploy the full arsenal of policy instruments available to them.
During the 1980s Edward Heath accused the then Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson of being a “one club golfer”. The former Prime Minister was referring to Mr Lawson’s reliance on interest rates to regulate the economic cycle. During his premiership Mr Heath used many tools to mismanage Britain’s economy. Mr Heath – or his advisers – had, perhaps, become slaves to the ‘Tinbergen Rule’ – then fashionable amongst some economists. The Rule suggested that a policymaker should have as many policy instruments as policy objectives. For example, tax could be used as the instrument to hit budget targets. An incomes policy could be used to regulate wage inflation. Interest rates could be used to manage the exchange rate. Direct subsidies could be made to cultivate industrial flagships (like Concorde).
Both Lawson and Heath failed in their macroeconomic objectives (Lawson and Margaret Thatcher were much better at supply-side reform). Lawson placed too much reliance on one policy tool and Heath’s government failed to understand the side-effects of policy actions. Effective policy-makers will use a variety of tools to achieve policy objectives and they will understand how policies emanating from different parts of government interconnect.
The potential of a joined-up ‘policy toolkit’ might become clearer if we consider the range of policy tools available to government ministers and how they might be used to support the family.
The policy toolkit and the family
Opponents of pro-family policies often like to reduce discussion to ‘one club golfing’ terms. They de-mon-bate by saying the promotion of traditional marriage inevitably means penalising single mums and gay people. Proper consideration of the spectrum of policy tools available to government shows that government policy can help marriage in a variety of ways.
Thought leadership
Without spending any taxpayers’ money a government minister can draw attention to the importance of an issue. Our heavily-politicised culture pays huge attention to the pronouncements of ministers (although probably not as much as they would like). Politicians – along with soap operas (which politicians have used for anti-smoking and safe sex messages) – can often command more front page attention than bishops or academics. Politicians can discuss the statistics that show how marriage provides much more stability than cohabitation. They can also promote marriage by simply visiting projects that support couples preparing for their weddings. Americans call this political thought leadership ‘bully pulpiting’.
Public education
Governments can educate the public about the importance of something like marriage by investing in projects that operate in schools or that prepare couples for marriage. Recently the government tried to educate the public about the legal risks of cohabiting. Debt is a huge factor in family break-up and debt education initiatives targeted on high-risk groups like students and young families might prevent dangerous levels of borrowing.
Government can undertake public education itself – as it does through the Health Development Agency. Conservatives would prefer support for private and voluntary education efforts, however. This will reduce ‘nanny state’ sensitivities and ensure more diverse and tailored services (with, for example, Sikhs providing bespoke services for their communities).
Financial support
The tax system is used to promote all sorts of activities (like saving, learning and starting a business) that are deemed to be beneficial for society. Many conservatives would like to see marriage supported in similar ways and they would certainly like to see an end to the current marriage penalty that taxes the decision to wed. Less expensive than big tax changes, however, would be government investment in marriage support initiatives – like Community Marriage Policies.
Regulation
Regulation is increasingly government’s favoured method of economic intervention. For businesses in heavily regulated sectors - like energy and the railways - regulation is the ‘new nationalisation’. Government uses regulation to mould the kind of sector it wants but without having to pay the financial cost of nationalisation. The most burning regulatory issues with regard to the family include divorce law and the access-to-children rights of separated fathers. The last Tory government tried to introduce no-fault divorce. This aborted reform would have made marriage an empty contract.
Joined-up government
To make any and all policies work requires different parts of government to know and understand what they are each doing. This often does not happen in Whitehall despite endless talk of ‘joined-up government’. New Labour Home Office and Education ministers have offered support for marriage whilst the Treasury has been tilting the tax system against it and whilst the Lord Chancellor has been cutting funding for marriage counseling. A system of family impact statements might help Whitehall to follow a more relationally-aware approach to public policy.
Comments