Is it the duty of government to realize the good life for all citizens?

‘If the first goal of the individual is to realize the good life for himself, the first duty of the state is to realize, insofar as it lies within its power, the good life for all citizens’.

The quoted passage is from ‘How Much is Enough?’(2012) by Robert Skidelsky - a biographer, economics professor and member of the British House of Lords - and his son. Edward, a philosopher.

Some readers might think that the quoted passage implies support for the view that it is the role of government to ensure that individuals have the freedom to realize the good life as they choose. That is far from what the authors have in mind, however.

Robert and Edward Skidelsky are unashamedly paternalistic in their views on the role of government. They recommend that governments should promote the good life by taxing the rich more heavily, imposing sumptuary taxes, regulating labour markets more extensively, disallowing tax deductions for advertising, and imposing more restrictions on international trade and capital flows. They see such interventions as necessary to ‘free up’ more time for leisure, reduce income inequality, improve the social bases of health, personality, respect and friendship, and help people to live in harmony with nature.

The authors describe their policy approach as ‘non-coercive paternalism’ because it involves incentives and disincentives rather than commands. Yet coercion must still be involved. The authors do not suggest that people who do not share the Skidelsky view of the good life would be exempt from compliance with their proposed taxes and regulations.

How do the authors make a case for paternalistic interventions to encourage people to live the good life? J M Keynes (later Lord Keynes), a famous economist, plays an important role in their story. In 1928, Keynes predicted that within 100 years humanity would be able to satisfy all its material needs by working at most three hours a day. For a time, it seemed as though this prediction might prove to be correct, because a substantial proportion of the benefits of rising productivity were being realized through greater leisure. The Skidelskys suggest that at the beginning of the 1970s it looked as though the rich part of the world was close to ‘the dawn of universal abundance’.

What went wrong? The explanation offered by the authors is that governments shifted to a market-based philosophy when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power. They acknowledge that free marketeers made some telling points about the crisis of Keynesian economics (the combination of rising unemployment and rising inflation) resulting from attempts to pursue full employment through fiscal deficits. But they claim that the oil price hikes of 1973 and 1979 played a bigger role in exposing economic rigidities and paving the way for a move toward free market policies.

So, how could a move toward greater freedom discourage people from choosing ‘the good life’? The authors’ explanation seems to have two components.

First, they argue that a free market economy gives employers power to make employees work longer hours. That doesn’t make sense to me. If large numbers of workers wanted to work shorter hours, surely it would be in the interests of employers to find ways to accommodate their desires. Over the last 40 years, it seems to me that working hours have actually become more flexible, with a move toward casual employment and greater willingness of many employers to allow workers to take time off to meet family obligations.

Second, the authors claim that capitalism rests on an endless expansion of wants: ‘It has taken away the consciousness of having enough’. The authors see advertising as the major culprit:

‘Advertising may not create insatiability, but it exploits it without scruple, whispering in our ear that our lives are drab and second-rate unless we consume “more”.’

This seems to me to be another weak point in the story. Advertisers didn’t suddenly begin to whisper in our ears with the move toward freer markets in the 1980s. They were whispering in our ears during the 1950s and 60s, when working hours were declining. And it is possible for people to cope with the whispering and to decide for themselves how much is enough. A lot of people choose non-materialistic lifestyles. Many of those who choose to work long hours and/or multiple jobs do so in order to enjoy a more relaxed lifestyle at a later stage of their lives.

I disagree profoundly with the central argument of this book that governments should construct incentives and disincentives to guide people to adopt that particular perception of the good life. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading ‘How Much is Enough?’ I agree with much of the discussion of the concept of happiness and strongly support the view presented there that a happy life is more than just a string of agreeable mental states. I admired the way the authors developed the idea that we should consider harmony with nature as part of the good life for humans.

In a personal sense, I find myself substantially in agreement with the authors’ vision of the good life. If they had confined themselves to sermonizing I would be cheering instead of jeering.

Are we better off when we have charismatic leaders?

Before I began reading ‘The Charisma Myth’, by Olivia Fox Cabane, I would have said that we are probably better off with non-charismatic political leaders. I would have argued that while non-charismatic political leaders tend to inspire no more confidence than is appropriate, some end up performing surprisingly well. By contrast, charismatic political leaders often seem to generate expectations that cannot be met.

However, by the time I was about half way through ‘The Charisma Myth’ I was thinking that the world might be a better place if there were a lot more charismatic people. Olivia demystifies charisma by suggesting that it consists of three behaviours – presence, warmth and power. Presence is about being fully present when you are in a conversation with another person. Warmth is about being benevolent, altruistic, caring etc. Power is about being perceived as able to affect the world around you. It seems like a good idea for everyone to show interest in what others are saying, to have good feelings toward other people and to show through their posture that they know that they have a right to occupy space.

Soon after that, however, I began to wonder whether it was the kind of book I should be reading. I think it was the bit about imagining yourself to be a big gorilla, taking up a lot of space, that got me wondering. The gorilla exercise might be good advice for people who have doubts about their right to occupy space, but it reminded me of the objectionable behaviour of someone I once met who held a powerful position which entitled him to sit at the head of a board room table. Instead of sitting in that position, this person sat at the side of the table, spreading his papers to occupy the space of about three normal people and leaving less space for everyone else. At the time I thought he was just doing it to display his power, but I now wonder whether it was something he learned to do at a leadership training course.

It was probably the catchy title that motivated me to read this book. I was interested in discovering the secret of charisma. But I must admit that once I started reading I decided to do some of the exercises in the book to see if I could develop some charisma. (It might take a lot of practice!)

I suspect that most of the people reading the book will be looking for more effective ways to win friends and influence people. That is not a problem, but the sub-title, ‘How anyone can master the art and science of personal magnetism’, might attract people who seek personal advantage at the expense of other people.  

In his recent comments on the book, former blogger Arnold King, wrote:

‘The self-help book I wish people would read is "How to recognize when you are being seduced by charisma and dial down your response." I think that a reader can find some of that information in this book, although it is not presented with that purpose in mind’.

We know that an attempt is being made to manipulate us when we detect pretence and insincerity. Olivia suggests that most people find it easy to perceive when others are being inauthentic because it shows up in their body language. Even if people read the book for ulterior motives, there is a fair chance that if they do the exercises they will tend to change their perceptions and behaviour in ways that would make them show genuine presence and warmth. Hopefully this would mean that they are less likely to knowingly exploit the vulnerabilities of others. But it would still leave potential for charismatic leaders who believe their own hype to lead their followers astray.

How can we tell when a charismatic leader is claiming to do things that he/she is not capable of doing? Imagine a political leader who obviously has massive confidence in his/her own abilities. This person makes it obvious from what he/she says that he/she listens to what ordinary people have to say. He/she shows great personal warmth and presents a vision of how life could be better for everyone.

Are there any warning signals to look for that might suggest whether such a leader is likely to end up disappointing his/her followers? In my view, an ambitious vision presented by a leader who shows no hint of doubt about his/her ability to achieve the desired outcomes should be enough to set alarm bells ringing loudly.

The problem is that a lot of people don’t want to hear the alarm bells. The expectations gap (that I write about in Chapter 8 and 9 of the book I am writing) is as much the result of voters wanting to be led to fantasy land as of political leaders promising to take them there. Nevertheless, a leader can generate support by admitting that he/she has ‘nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat’, when it becomes obvious that unpleasant truths must be faced.

So, after reading the book, do I think we are better off with charismatic leaders? Presence and warmth are obviously good qualities for everyone to have, including political leaders. As for power, I think it can be positive or negative depending on its source. Leaders who display unlimited faith in their ability to accomplish miracles will almost invariably disappoint everyone, including their followers. Charisma is a plus when the power component comes from intellect and/or values that might help the leader to do the job. 

Is there a close relationship between subjective and objective indicators of environmental protection?

The subjective indicator of environmental protection that I have in mind is data from the Gallup World Poll on the percentage of respondents who say they are satisfied with efforts to preserve the natural environment. I have used this as one of several indicators of opportunity for individual human flourishing in a draft of Chapter 6 of ‘Free to Flourish’, the book I have been writing.

The objective indicator of environmental protection that I have in mind is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) which is the result of a major collaborative project of research agencies associated with Yale and Colombia universities. The EPI is calculated on the basis of 22 performance indicators reflecting facets of environmental public health and ecosystem vitality.

   

The relationship between the two indexes is shown in Figure 1 below.

In broad terms, the relationship is positive, but not close. The people in some countries (e.g. Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Singapore) seem to be much more satisfied with efforts to protect the environment than would be predicted on the basis of objective indicators. By contrast, the people in some other countries (e.g. Mongolia, Bulgaria and Italy) seem to be much less satisfied with efforts to protect the environment than would be predicted on that basis.

Some light is shed on what seems to be happening by a regression analysis which seeks to explain satisfaction with efforts to protect the environment in terms of government effectiveness (using the relevant indicator in the World Bank’s suite of governance indicators) and the EPI. The analysis suggests that the governance variable is much more important than the EPI in explaining satisfaction with efforts to protect the environment. This is shown graphically in Figure 2, which plots the satisfaction variable against government effectiveness. The points shown as blue squares are the predicted values for each country based on the multiple regression (including both of the explanatory variables). The values barely diverge from the black line in which the government effectiveness variable is the only explanatory variable. 

My conclusion is that satisfaction with efforts to protect the environment is more a measure of satisfaction with governance than a measure of environmental protection. On this basis it would probably be preferable to use the EPI as an indicator of the impact that environmental factors are likely to have on opportunities for individual human flourishing.I am using the EPI in the latest draft of Chapter 6 of 'Free to Flourish'.

What fantasies are associated with the modern pursuit of happiness?

A draft of the final chapter of ‘Free to Flourish’, the book I am writing, has just been uploaded to the book’s web site.

My aim in this chapter has been to draw together the threads from earlier chapters by identifying fantasies related to the issues discussed.

My list of fantasies:

• Happiness is just about experiences.
• Paternalistic governments can help us flourish.
• Restrictions on freedom help people to flourish.
• Governments should be seeking to maximize collective happiness.
• No society is better than any other.
• Progress is history.
• Democratic governments can’t fail.

It is tempting to try to summarize why I think the listed points are fantaasies, but anyone who is interested can easily follow this link and take a look at the draft of ‘Chapter 9: The Choice – Fantasy or Opportunity’.