In the current global economic crisis, it’s particularly important for politicians to be clear what they mean by ‘fairness’ and to set out openly how to measure its achievement
In its recent report to the World Economic Forum, the Risk Response Network rehearsed a chilling scenario. It described a possible outcome in which ‘a large youth population contends with chronic high levels of unemployment, while concurrently, the largest population of retirees in history becomes dependent upon already heavily indebted governments. Both young and old could face an income gap, as well as a skills gap so wide as to threaten social and political stability.’
No wonder then that as governments around the world grapple with the challenge of super-size deficits and debt, one word is reverberating more loudly than almost any other: fairness.
It arises in a wide variety of different national circumstances – for example, in Greece where ever more aggressive austerity programmes are being pursued, and in the United States which has a much more cautious stance on cutting public spending.
But what does fairness mean when it is used in the context of government fiscal policy and public services?
Is it about the way in which opportunities and rewards for different occupations are distributed within society? Is it about the mix of taxes and their incidence; the extent to which tax avoidance is tolerated; or the scale and basis of distribution of welfare benefits?
Is fairness about the criteria that inform changes in public expenditure patterns – the decisions that determine whether particular public services are protected or cut? Is it about inter-generational equity: the danger that current generations are consuming resources in an unsustainable way which will be paid for by our children and grandchildren?
The answer to these and many similar questions is probably ‘all of the above’. Fairness is complex and multi-faceted. Often it is less about the impacts of single policies on individual citizens or communities, and much more about multiple impacts – the aggregate effect of a wide range of different and often relatively unjoined-up policies.
And there lies the difficulty. If fairness really is about all of these factors and the complex interplay between them, will we ever be able to measure it effectively and hold governments to account for their performance in delivering fair policies and fair outcomes?
In order to make progress, we have to make a choice. We can continue to use the term without making any special efforts to define its meaning in the context of austere public finances. This might be justified on a ‘we know it when we see it’ basis. If we go down this road it means that accountability is really about argument. Politicians defending controversial decisions will claim that they are ‘fair’. Protestors will disagree and wave placards demanding their own ‘fair’ alternatives.
Or we can attempt definition. Governments can set out clearly in a small number of crisp statements what fairness means around here – perhaps in terms of particular vulnerable groups, taxation policies, public spending priorities, debt reduction or consumption of natural resources. If we go down this road, accountability can be informed by measurement.
In my view, arguments work best in debating societies. Public accountability works best when it is underpinned by reliable, timely, measurable information.
So let’s make a bold choice to encourage and challenge politicians in all countries to articulate what they mean by fairness, and to set out clearly how they believe that we should measure its achievement. That is the best way to ensure that fairness is more than a political slogan or soundbite, that it has real definition and meaning, and that its influence in policy development and implementation can be measured and called to account.
