PFI

Roy Hattersley, The Guardian, Monday May 20, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,718669,00.html

A couple of weeks ago, a television news producer invited me to make one of those 40-second recordings that

pass for serious treatment of important subjects these days. The subject he had in mind was the private finance initiative�the system by which the government pays for most new hospital building. Fearing I was incapable of the necessary compression, I declined with thanks. The inevitable question followed. Did I know anyone who would publicly express doubts about the merits of the scheme? Usually I refuse to act as a talent scout. But on the subject of the PFI, I made a confident suggestion: Professor Allyson Pollock of the school of public policy at University College London. "Totally discredited," the producer replied. Suspecting that he was not an authority on health economics, I asked him how he came to that conclusion. "The government," he replied, "says that her research does not stand up."I should have given the producer a lecture about the responsibility of broadcasters in a free society. Instead I told Prof Pollock of the conversation when next we met. Her reaction was disconcertingly calm. It was, she said, all part of a

Such ideas are not new. Indeed they have always been part of human experience.

But their significance has been suppressed under a variety of pretexts in the interests of those with power to influence political decisions in their own favour, regardless of the consequences for others. Only the exercise of such arbitrary powers can account for the disorders in which we find ourselves.

We need a systems approach based upon the analysis of values to be served � the human needs to be met and the priorities required when needs are in conflict.

There is no space here to explore the implications of this idea adequately, but some cautions may be in order. The approach required must link, by means of properly arranged and timed feedback, the progress of events with the objectives and targets to be achieved.

There may be no need, in practice, to distinguish stupidity from cupidity, craziness and/or conspiracies among the powers that be. The remedy is the same � an insistence on full disclosure. Demands by those in power for secrecy with respect to decision processes and tribunals must always be treated with the utmost skepticism. Trust must be earned, and cannot be demanded. Without the possibility of verification, the presumption of trust cannot be secure. As every educated person is increasingly aware, transparency and accountability are essential in public life.

It is forlorn to hope that those who cling to power can be simply replaced by men who will wield power differently. Real power cannot be simply preempted or replaced. What is required is informed democratic control based upon clear comparisons of promises with outcomes. A freedom of information which amounts to noise obfuscates everything. National and world security must be sought in the arena of more adequately structured processes of public information.

Moore identifies many glaring problems in the public sphere, and it is obvious that he strikes a responsive chord in many readers. Satire and ridicule may be potent in helping arouse public opinion. But we also need to realize that ideas are available, intellectual tools that offer better prospects than those now commonly in use. Such ideas deserve more attention from those who claim the authority of leadership.

Bruce Buchanan

1. Moore, Michael (2001). Stupid White Men�and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! New York: HarperCollins.

2. Post-Autistic Economics Review: www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review.

3. Varoufakis, Yanis. �Why Critics of Economics Can Ill-afford the �Postmodern Turn.�� Post-Autistic Economics Review, issue no. 13, May 2, 2002, article 1.

� from Economic Reform, June 2002