There has been a lot of handwringing around the democratic deficit implicit in a ‘technocratic’ Government running a country with a PM at the helm that has not been elected into place. Setting aside what a technocrat actually is (I think they just like the word because it sounds cold and statist) and also setting aside the democratically sound sequence of events where politicians allowed these people to take over because they, you know, know what they’re doing, I can’t help but think that it is precisely technocrats at the helm that is required to solve the Euro crisis.
Let’s consider what we can expect otherwise with the politicians at the helm:
The David Cameron solution – the big bazooka approach of allowing the European Central Bank to print as many Euros as we need to bail out Italy, Spain, Greece and, heck, why not France too while we’re at it. Yes, yields would go down, yes the stock market would go up, but this is not real money that is being produced here, we’d be fighting debt with debt and I bet that wouldn’t work. It is more than a little bit convenient that this proposed solution effectively firewalls the United Kingdom from the fallout.
The Angela Merkel solution – With German patience with European neighbours wearing wafer thin, the idea of a Berlin bailout is all but dead. The problem child countries in the Eurozone need to feel pain, and need to be seen to be feeling pain, for Chancellor Merkel being seen to have done her job properly. I don’t know what the German word for schadenfreude is, but I bet the Germans are feeling it when they see those yields hit 7%. Insolvency and falling out of the Euro seems to be the general direction here.
The Nicolas Sarkozy solution – A financial transactions tax basically, a Robin Hood tax that takes from London and goes straight through the EU and out the other side to France via the Common Agricultural Policy rebates. Merci beaucoup my British chums, one might say, but there is no chance that Cameron will accept this, let alone his Eurosceptic backbenchers.
The Greek/Italian solution – Get the technocrats banking experts to find the solution that is a mix of the above and politically unpleasant for all.
Banking’s a tough old beast. The issue at hand here is basically the mother of all intercompany reconciliations that needs to be lanced and wound down to zero across a continent (and no doubt beyond). As someone who has had to audit and complete numerous relatively straightforward but nonetheless hideously ghastly intercompany recs in my time, I can be sure that we have a 99.9%/0.01% situation at play here. (that is, despite the millions of column inches, only the 0.01% know what they’re talking about. And you can probably add a few zeroes after that decimal point).
We need troubleshooters who can look beyond the next budget, who can look beyond the elections that are around the corner and can objectively take the difficult decisions while all about them people are losing their heads.
Those people are boring, those people wear brown suits and black shoes, those people can see eight, nine steps ahead, those people gobble Excel spreadsheets for breakfast, those people are honest brokers and cut through the crap.
For want of a better word, those people are technocrats and their time is now.
#1 by haarandrime on November 18, 2011 - 8:25 pm
Those people are also very connected to Goldman Sachs and the Bilderberg Club so whose interest are they really looking after and as Paul Mason of Newsnight reminds us – look to what happened in Bolivia with Carlos Mesa. The new governing technocrat of Greece has already included 3/4 members of the far right/Fascist party LAOS in his government. How can you impose austerity and carry the people with you with no mandate?
#2 by Nikostratos on November 18, 2011 - 9:02 pm
‘need to feel pain, and need to be seen to be feeling pain’
A Thatcherite slogan from the old days
schadenfreude
‘Secret enjoyment from the troubles of others’
sounds Doric to me
#3 by Barbarian on November 18, 2011 - 9:43 pm
I think we should be worried about this plan for the financial services tax. From my limited economic knowledge, it seems France’s debt is quite risky. Not as bad as Italy but not that far off it either.
With regards to technocrats, I think it is a dangerous step away from democracy, since these people cannot be held politically responsible. But it’s hard to see how the politicians could do any better.
Saying that, as an Excel geek myself, albeit in operational processing analysis (much more exciting than accounts), I would like to volunteer my services. After all, I can’t do any worse!
#4 by Angus McLellan on November 18, 2011 - 11:05 pm
Isn’t Stamp Duty (SDRT) a restricted form of financial services tax? There seems no good reason why its scope couldn’t be extended to cover financial derivatives (but not options) or exchange transactions.
#5 by Stuart Winton on November 19, 2011 - 6:27 am
Reminds me slightly of when I did a bit of auditing (in an earlier life), and one of the standing jokes related to how boring the actuarial profession was ;0)
#6 by cynicalHighlander on November 18, 2011 - 10:25 pm
If I am reading you right that you fully endorse the removal of democracy for the many and give the banking class free reign to carry on grabbing more wealth for the rich by instigating stiff austerity on the rest!
Please explain those reasons as non of these people recognised the problems in our monetary system from the last few decades as they only know how to make money and absolutely nothing else.
Buckle up – Credit Crunch 2
Are We Reaching “Limits to Growth�
Banks lifeblood is growth on a finite planet leaving them only one source of fuel left and that is our limited individual wealth.
#7 by Jeff on November 18, 2011 - 11:50 pm
Well you’re not reading me right then.
Point out for me, if you please, where in the process for Greece and/or Italy democracy was “removed”.
#8 by Craig Gallagher on November 19, 2011 - 1:03 am
I can’t agree with this Jeff, either in principle or in practice. On the matter of principle, while I endorse representative democracy, these people are circumventing even delegated legislatures to retain control of events in the hands of a super-elite who supposedly “know better”. I don’t buy it. The likes of Mario Monti have their hands all over the Eurozone crisis, as does Lucas Papademos. The ideal of philosopher kings riding in to save us from democratic despotism leaves you with the American political system, in which elites dominate the agenda to such an extent that government operates for the very, very few – indeed, the 0.01% you yourself reference – with no means of being impeached or overthrown.
In practice as well, what possible legitimacy can any of these leaders claim? People can offer platitudes about them being selected by the legislatures of Italy and Greece, but that completely ignores the point that the previous governments were brought down by German and French political pressure, effectively external foreign powers dominating government agendas in a manner all too reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s attitude to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but using banks instead of tanks.
Your entire argument here blithely accepts the notion that the only way to save the Eurozone is for the ordinary people to suffer the overwhelming costs, in terms of austerity measures imposed from abroad and the corresponding loss of their representation. That is a falsehood. There is another way, which involves simply allowing the banks who started this entire mess to go bust, and to delegitimise the entire technocratic elite who got us into this mess in the first place through wholesale popular elections, or even referenda, in every country on whether we care more about our political rights or retaining the “confidence” of the corrosive free market system we seem to be beholden to.
But then, I’m an idealist, something we seem to be in depressingly short supply of in the Eurozone these days.
#9 by Richard on November 19, 2011 - 1:49 am
I don’t know what the German word for schadenfreude is
Reminds me of Only Fools & Horses:
Del Boy – What’s French for “duck”?
Rodney, looking through dictionary – “Canard”
Del Boy – And what’s French for “a l’orange”?
#10 by Richard on November 19, 2011 - 1:57 am
Seriously though Jeff, are you proposing some kind of meritocracy, where the brightest and best run the country, instead of their own companies?
The ancient Chinese developed just such a system and it kept their society (which had been more advanced than Europe) technologically moribund for centuries.
Or there is the modern-day example of Singapore; where a de facto benign dictatorship has been in place since the 60s and idea of democracy is illusory. It works well in Asia, but I don’t think it would be tolerated in Europe.
#11 by douglas clark on November 19, 2011 - 6:49 am
“I don’t know what the German word for schadenfreude is”.
Well, I laughed out loud, or LOL as you younger technocrats say these days……
Is this a job application I see before me?
#12 by Stuart Winton on November 19, 2011 - 7:04 am
“We need troubleshooters who can look beyond the next budget, who can look beyond the elections that are around the corner and can objectively take the difficult decisions while all about them people are losing their heads.”
A fairly compelling argument Jeff, and on a wider note the eurozone problem and the solution posited is perhaps symptomatic of a wider failure of democracy, from the issue in question right down to the likes of councils empting the bins.
Which is basically about the competence of the politicians to decide on these matters – for example, at the lowest level of democracy, councillors rubber stamping documents that they’ve simply never read, never mind understood – and the extent to which the technocrats should run things rather than the politicians.
Which in turn reminds me of my guest post from a few weeks back, which was to a large extent about how the ‘bureaucrats’ (which to a large extent is synonymous with ‘technocrats’) run things rather than the politicians, despite the accoutrements of ostensible democracy, which are very often little more than a facade.
A related issue again is the idea of Professor Walter Humes’ ‘narrative privilege’ – which I used to bang on about on my blog – which essentially means that there can be a situation where the whole edifice of democracy – civil servants, politicians, pressure groups etc – can in effect gang up to exclude alternative perspectives, again despite appearing to operate in a democratic and inclusive manner.
Of course, the self-evident lack of democracy – for good or bad – in the example in question is a bit different because it’s a huge issue which everyone knows about and those outside the process can at least comment on the matter, but that’s not necessarily the case with the more bread and butter issues.
But to an extent the merit of technocracy is already recognised by the politicians in the related matter of monetary policy. Thus the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee was given the power to set interest rates rather than having politicians do it, since it was considered that the latter were more concerned with using monetary policy for short term political purposes (for example, to provide an unsustainable boost to economic growth in the run up to an election, perhaps to the detriment of longer-term macroeconomic stability) rather than in the long term interests of the economy. (Of course, that was one of Gordon Brown’s legacies.)
I assume the European Central Bank’s decision making process operates along similar lines.
Likewise, in the domestic context regulation of sectors of the economy – such as enegy, the railways and broadcasting – have been handed to independent regulators (aka techo/bureau-crats) for the same reasons.
Of course, the technocratic solution profered for the eurozone crisis provides an easy target for those with political axes to grind, but at least some of us recognise that the dividing line between democracy and bureacracy/technocracy is by no means straightforward ;0)
#13 by Ben Achie on November 19, 2011 - 1:17 pm
The whole European crisis (with close fiscal similarities in the US) is actually a failure of the political class in many countries in failing to prudently manage their economies over the long term. German aversion to inflation on the one hand, and reluctance to take on the European leadership mantle on the other, combined with their desire for European unity, has put them between a rock and…….
The Greeks will take the necessary medicine, and public realisation generally is dawning about unsustainable consumption and growth expectations, but it will take a new breed of democratically elected politician with lots of real life experience to sort it out in the longer term.
I cannot see that there is much choice but to put outsiders in place, although it is highly undesirable, but they can only act with democratic approval of their proposals. None of this precludes taking the banks to task, but the best people to do this could be poachers turned gamekeepers.
It was the politicians that failed to keep the banks in check, having fallen in hawk to them due to a spend, spend, spend attitude and forgetting about tomorrow. Tomorrow has arrived, after, in the UK’s case, a ten year binge that was obviously going to end in tears when it started.
#14 by Doug Daniel on November 19, 2011 - 1:50 pm
The main problem I have with this is the idea that politicians are incapable of getting us out of this mess, so we must hand it over to people who truly are capable. Well if that’s the case, why do we not have these people in charge during the “good times” as well? Why bother having politicians at all?
I think there is an implied assumption that politicians are to blame for the situation we’re in. Certainly, in the case of Italy and Greece, they have been the victims of poor governments who have been incredibly corrupt and have allowed tax evasion to run rife (although is that the fault of governments for not enforcing tax law properly, or of the people themselves for being dishonest?) But are they the ones who took increasingly bad risks with other peoples’ money on sub-prime mortgages?
The blame that must be attributed to politicians in this economic crisis is that they allowed it to happen. They failed to remember the lessons from history and put us on the fast track to The Second Great Depression (incidentally, one of the best songs the Manics have written over the past few years – maybe Nicky Wire should be put in charge?) However, it seems to me that putting the very same people who were part of the cause of the crisis is akin to putting illegal immigrants in charge of UK Border controls, or criminals in charge of the prison service. We’re using neo-liberal solutions to solve a problem caused by neo-liberal policies. How can that even begin to make sense?
We all know what these technocrats are going to do. They’re going to privatise everything. They’re going to sell off assets. They may even sell advertising space on the Necropolis and the Colosseum. This whole crisis has been because “the markets” suddenly decided to lose confidence in themselves, and the “recovery” has been all about trying to make them rediscover that confidence. Why are we allowing ourselves to be slaves to the market? Tell them to go shaft themselves.
This whole crisis is straight out of the pages of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Reading it, you’d think Europe wouldn’t be stupid enough to fall for it again – looks like nothing could be further from the truth.
(I’m going to look really daft if people already advertise on the Necropolis and the Colosseum…)
#15 by Jon on November 19, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Yes. What we need is less democracy, and a middle aged white man in a suit to sort it all out for us. *insert ‘wacko’ smilie* What a truly bizarre proposition.
I don’t know when people are going to wake up and stop looking to elected or “appointed” politicians to solve all their problems. Politicians and bankers have to take most of the blame for the current linked series of financial crises, but there’s too much buck-passing by the ordinary voter, too much buying into the narrative that “they” have done this to “us”. Sorry, but voter apathy, disinterest and refusal to engage seriously with political ideas is just as much to blame for the current economic tailspin, as the disastrous decision making by politicians in the last 10-15 years. We’re so little interested that politicians and bankers not unreasonably assumed that they could pretty much do what they liked, and no one would care. Until Sir Shred, they were largely right.
It’s a very high price we’re all going to pay in the next few years for apathy, disinterest, cheap and easy cynicism, and the withdrawal of most citizens from an active engagement in public life (say 30 years ago) to today’s atomised, disinterested, trivial, me-me-me-me culture.
#16 by Bob Dobbalina on November 19, 2011 - 4:54 pm
Look! There’s a crisis somewhere! Quick! Give me alll the rights and freedoms that your forebearer’s fought and died for! I’ll give youthem back once the problem’s solved. Honest.
Embrace technocracy and expert guidance. It has done wonders for the energy and transport markets. And aren’t financiers technocrats too?
So you want a highly disparate collection of sovereign nations to be handed over wholesale, at cut-rate, to a military-industrial super-state, thereafter to be governed by unaccountable and unelected faceless people in boring suits. What a great idea. You can convince yourself that you thought of it yourself. Haha.
Labour… What happened to ye?
Despite the name of this blog, I can safely assume you haven’t read Lanark. Or you just didn’t get it.
#17 by Barbarian on November 19, 2011 - 5:04 pm
Technocrats might be smart, but that does not mean they have common sense. But then, neither do many politicians.
#18 by Barbarian on November 20, 2011 - 10:36 am
There is a book called “The Next 500 Years” by Adrian Berry. I have it somewhere in the depths of my loft. Well worth a read, and he makes a predcition that politics will cease to exist, replaced by business. And to be honest, that is where things are going.
#19 by Ben Achie on November 20, 2011 - 11:01 am
This is not the time for recriminations, it is the time for action! Just about Gordon Brown’s only saving grace, although he got it wrong again, was to seek concerted international action to deal with the banking crisis in 2008. Problem was, he’d travelled so far from where he started from that he had forgotten the basics – like giving a whole lot more public money to the bunch of clowns who primarily caused the problem in the first place was forgetting whose money that was. Either the plug should have been pulled, while deposits were guaranteed, or any seeking bailouts simply nationalised.
Were people and not just countries silly in borrowing so much money? Yes. But how do folk just wanting a roof over their heads get any security other than by taking out a mortgage, when there is a massive, prolonged housing bubble? People are influenced by the prevailing trends, and politicians inevitably have to reflect that, otherwise they get thrown out of office – but they are culpable, almost en masse, for failing to tell it like it was.
My view is that the current crisis is overwhelmingly the fault of the European political class, and that the prevailing ethos of professional politicians making a whole career in politics and its associated modern curse, the lobbying and PR “industries”, is the key to what has caused this failure. I think we could learn an awful lot of lessons from the Swiss with their part-time assemblies and part-time politicians, who by virtue of that truly do “connect” with their societies.
Fix that and you’ll fix the associated bureaucracies and technocracies, but Europe is currently overwhelmed with spendthrift politicians who , you can be sure, will have guaranteed themselves a soft landing. So much for solidarity!
#20 by Liam Furby on November 20, 2011 - 5:53 pm
I can understand the democratic deficit inherent in a ‘technocratic’ government but I’m not necessarily against it. In every other professional field we assume that the best people should be chosen to do a job. Yet, we’re often stuck with politicians that are not fit to run the machinery of government. Incidentally, the opposite is true of the SNP Government, their competency 2007-11 was rewarded by the electorate.
It’s funny how obsessed we are about having our government leaders elected when in some countries (such as the United States) this is expressly forbidden by constitution. It works because the country is so evenly divided in opinion and so partisan, they can trust in their government leaders to look at things more objectively than a politician looking to personal/party re-election. In Italy this is probably a good thing considering they go through Prime Ministers and governments so quickly.
For my take on the UK/Scottish context of the ‘EU Crisis’ go to http://wotsnews.tumblr.com/post/12940811375
#21 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 12:32 pm
The difficulty with that argument is that while politicians can validly be criticised with taking their eye off the ball and being sucked into the whole credit/housing bubble because it was popular and while the public can be critcised on the same grounds neither the politicians or the public actually took the decisions which have proved to be so disastrous over the years – not just since 2008 but in the years running up to that.
So while both politicians and the public at large are culpable, neither is as culpable as the financiers and the bankers – the very people who are now being lauded as “technocrats” who can clear the whole mess up.
You really could not make it up.
#22 by Stuart Winton on November 22, 2011 - 11:44 am
Liam, your nakedly partisan point about the SNP shouldn’t go unremarked upon, particularly in the particular context of the banking crisis and the euro.
After all, the SNP were as dewy-eyed about the euro as anyone at its inception, and Alex Salmond was bigging up the Scottish banks – and lauding RBS’s disastrous acquisition of basket case ABN Amro – just months before the whole thing went belly up.
For a former RBS economist that’s not particularly encouraging as regards the SNP getting real macroeconomic powers.
#23 by Liam Furby on November 22, 2011 - 7:53 pm
Indy, you make a fair point but I was making the argument that the best people should be chosen for the job, clearly failed bankers wouldn’t get a look in. Don’t think we’re going to see Fred Goodwin getting John Swinney’s job anytime soon.
Stuart, I’ll admit making that point was partisan but that does not make it any less true. The Scottish people gave the SNP a majority, largely due to the competence with which they used their limited economic powers 2007-2011
It should be remembered that the SNP do not want macroeconomic powers for themselves, they want powers for a sovereign Scottish Parliament. It is for a Government of whatever political persuasion to implement these. To suggest that the Scottish Parliament cannot wisely use these powers based on a two sentence letter from Alex Salmond is just silly.
#24 by Stuart Winton on November 23, 2011 - 3:40 pm
So since you regard my point as ‘silly’, what precisely does Alex Salmond’s two sentence letter say about his economic judgement. And his view on the banks? On banking regulation? On the spivs and speculators who supposedly brought down HBOS?
Or on the euro?
To claim that I posited an opinion based merely on a two sentence letter is perhaps what’s silly?
#25 by Indy on November 21, 2011 - 10:42 am
Or, to put it more simply, bankers should run the word.