Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Rethinking the selfare state 16
system) which Bradford, Shaviro and others do not consider voucher-like. We contend,
however, that it manages to capture what is unique, from a policy innovation perspective,
about voucher initiatives: their emphasis on consumer choice and on improved efficiency
in the supply of a limited set of goods or services. As such, our definition responds to the
two main arguments against pure public provision: the inefficiency of monopoly public
provision, and the lack of consumer choice. Since these criticisms are precisely why
options like voucher schemes are being sought out as alternatives to pure government
provision, a definition which addresses them directly is both appropriate and timely.
Contractual relationships and the delivery of social services
The context
As Osbourne and Gaebler have observed, since the birth of the welfare state “political
debate in America [and, indeed, elsewhere] has centered on questions of ends: what
government should do, and for whom.” 12 However, these questions are now eclipsed by
intense debate about the ability of the government to actually meet these ends; that is, to
do what it and the electorate to whom it is ostensibly responsible have decided to do. The
perceived crisis, according to Osbourne and Gaebler is that while “we have new goals
[…] our governments cannot seem to achieve them. The central failure of government
today is one of means, not ends,” 13 a failure which the instrumental use of private
providers through contracting-out, voucher programs and other policy alternatives is
hoped to rectify. A strong formulation of the case for private provision is offered by
Shleifer, who considers that:
[t]he benefits of private delivery—regulated or not—of many goods and
services are only beginning to be realized. Health, education, some
incarceration, some military and police activities, and some of what now
is presumed to be “social” insurance like Social Security, can probably be
provided more cheaply and attractively by private firms. It is plausible
that 50 years from now, today’s support for public provision of these
services will appear as dirigiste as the 1940s arguments for state
ownership of industry appear now. A good government that wants to
further “social goals” would rarely own producers to meet its objectives. 14
Despite Shleifer’s strong rhetoric, the idea that private firms can do a better job of
delivering social goods than the state and that governments are better at “steering” rather
than “rowing” is not a partisan contention, but rather one around which many
commentators from both the left and the right have converged to varying degrees. Even
certain contemporary socialists have rejected the very idea of a command economy. 15 So
persuasive is the idea of public-private partnerships that Martha Minow chose the
following secondary title for her recent article on the topic: “Accounting for the New
Religion.” 16
A rather different justification for the limited withdrawal of government from the
business of producing social goods and services is provided by Cass, who argues that