Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Third Way: Can a healthy economy be an economy for health?

By Brian Mackenzie - posted Thursday, 24 February 2005


Canadian work has shown that, if the poorest 20 per cent of the population had the same health status as the wealthiest 40 per cent, they would enjoy 13 more years of disability-free life: whereas, if heart disease and cancer were eliminated for the poorest 20 per cent, they would experience only 2 to 5 more years disability-free life.

The Canadian 1997 National Forum on Health was clear: the bottom line is that distributing money and power is the same as distributing health status.

If this is the case, then it seems unlikely that an economy that is based on fostering economic growth can be health enhancing, but some Third Way-ers seem content to see a wide gap between rich and poor. The issue, they say, isn't whether the very richest person ends up becoming richer. The issue is whether the poorest person is given the chance that they don't otherwise have. (Quite how they can argue this when the 500 or so billionaires in the world control wealth equal to that controlled by countries which make up 45 per cent of the world's population eludes me, but they do.)

Advertisement

If our economy were structured so as to promote the health of our population then what would be its parameters?

  • Its fundamental organising principle would be to nurture and protect its children;
  • Wealth would be defined in terms of the quality of social (including economic) interactions;
  • It would be co-operative in the way it worked, and would make sure that everyone wins;
  • It would tilt the playing field to assist the disadvantaged - i.e. it would focus on (perhaps insist on) equality of outcomes;
  • It would celebrate wealth creation (as defined above) and equal sharing of the wealth;
  • It would be oriented primarily at the level of neighbourhood, however defined. It would encourage ethical trade between global neighbourhoods;
  • It would value and reward collective processes, where the widest possible participation occurred;
  • It would avoid inequality, recognising that inequality is the most serious of the non-communicable diseases;
  • It would focuses on maximising social inclusion to promote stability; and,
  • It would be oriented towards sustainable development at the neighbourhood and global levels.

Some would argue that giving any group primacy would infringe the rights of other groups. In my view, it is right to focus on children because they are the most vulnerable of groups. In creating a society in which they can prosper, we create a society in which all vulnerable people can prosper.

Let's acknowledge too, that it is never right to give advantage to one’s own children at the expense of someone else’s children. If, as the American Constitution says “all men are created equal”, then it is never better that someone else’s child starves rather than your own; never better that someone else’s child has to live in fear; nor that they have less chance to be educated.

So let's sit the two sets of parameters together. At all points they are diametrically opposed. 

Advertisement

Healthy Economy

Economy for Health

Purpose is to allow wealth creation, where wealth is defined as “the creation of 'valuable' objects or services for intended customers”

Purpose is to nurture and protect children. Wealth is defined in terms of the quality of social (including economic) interactions

Competitive - entails winners and losers

Co-operative - makes sure that everyone wins

Minimum regulation - level playing field

Tilts the playing field to assist the disadvantaged

Celebrates wealth creation and acquisition

Celebrates wealth creation and equal sharing

Global in orientation - encourages free trade between nation states and trans-national corporations.

Neighbourhood orientation - encourages ethical trade between global neighbourhoods

Values & rewards individual risk-taking

Values and rewards collective processes

Requires inequality

Avoids inequality

Oriented towards achieving growth in the economy at the nation state or global level

Oriented towards sustainable development at the neighbourhood and global levels

Focuses on fiscal and monetary policy as stabilising levers

Focuses on maximising social inclusion to promote stability

In an economy for health, anything we wanted to do would have to pass the double-sided test - “will this harm children?” (If so, we don't do it.) And “will it benefit them?” (If so, we do it.) If its impact on children is going to be neutral or benign, we would need to agree on what are the second-order criteria.

So what would be the implications of running an economy for health? How would you demonstrate the benefit to children of television advertising? Perhaps the most valued occupations would be those involved in the nurture and protection of children - healing, education, policing, child care (including parenting). Certainly, though, we would value people on the basis of who they are, not what they do. We would not value playing the stock or other money markets unless the rewards were shared equally among the world’s children. We would reduce the volume of motorised traffic in areas that children live, on both road safety and air quality grounds. And so on …

That kind of world sounds attractive to me.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brian MacKenzie is Director of Special Projects at Tai Poutini Polytechnic, Greymouth, NZ.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy