What the state is for

22 06 2009

News that the Tories are planning to scrap a new government body aimed at fast-tracking planning decisions, such as for airports or roads, should be met with qualified approval. The creation of this body, The Infrastructure Planning Commission, by Labour was an attempt to bypass the need to politically convince people that large infrastructure projects are necessary.

As Frank Furedi argues, the state in the UK is failing to fulfil many of its key functions, the creation of a modern infrastructure being one of them. There are many things that are socially and economically necessary which private capital cannot or will not do. The creation of large scale infrastructure projects involves levels of investment, planning  and coordination which necessitate the involvement of and leadership by the state.

The dependence of the UK economy over the past ten years on financial services , which require little more than offices and telephones in order to function,  has allowed growth to take place without  basic infrastructure upgrades. The probable decline of financial services as a driver for the UK economy makes the infrastructure issue even more vital.

New Labour, despite having increased public spending in almost every area of the economy, has conspicuously failed to modernise the basic infrastructure of the UK.  Dieter Helm recently listed the main areas which require attention,

Major upgrades are needed to the electricity and gas networks, smart meters, high-speed trains, upgrading the London Underground, Crossrail, new runways, new water resources and sewerage systems, and broadband roll-out, …new power stations, energy efficiency and renewables

Many of these projects are controversial and politically sensitive, nuclear power probably being top of the list.

Rather than confront directly those who cannot see the big picture requirement for investment in infrastructure New Labour has resorted to inquiries and bureaucratic means of pushing things through. It has often abdicated the need for government leadership by handing the decision making process over to third parties in an attempt to seem neutral and objective.

There are many aspects of life that the state should not involve itself in, (see the comments on this blog for some good examples), but it has a major responsibility for keeping the traffic running and the lights on.

add to del.icio.us Add to Blinkslist add to furl Digg it add to ma.gnolia Stumble It! add to simpy seed the vine TailRank post to facebook

Advertisements

Actions

Information

5 responses

22 06 2009
Rob Clowes

The Infrastructure Planning Commission looks like an attempt to recognise that the present planning system can’t really deal with the big infrastructure replacement and extension and is rather set up to stop it being built (James Heartfield’s book Let’s Build http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lets-Build-Million-Homes-Years/dp/0955383005/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245668303&sr=8-7 was rather excellent on all this). The parochial nature of the present planning system conspires to stop major infrastructure being built or makes them glacially slow in coming.

Getting rid of the IPS without doing something about the existing planning system is a license to stop possible infrastructure development in its tracks. It seems like a sop from the Tories to middle England to allow controversial infrastructure projects to devolve to a local level where Nimby policies will tend to dominate to block them. I can’t see how this is itself about anything other than avoiding debating the hard questions and further evacuating the content of a forthcoming election set to be dominated by evasions over corruption scandals.

The Tories (and Labour) should – although won’t – get on and argue out how Britain and its infrastructure should look in the future so we can vote on it. Labour has been woeful in avoiding debating questions that require taking hard decisions but I can’t see that the Tories are doing any better on this just now.

29 09 2009
If G Brown saved the world why can’t he save himself « UK After The Recession

[…] this period was to spend the windfall from the City on consumer services rather than investing in upgrading the UK’s infrastructure on a wider scale. Better roads, railways and more nuclear power stations amongst other things would […]

14 10 2009
Mandelson’s ‘industrial activism’ to boost innovation-too little too late « UK After The Recession

[…] important for the state to use its resources and authority to enable economic development as I have argued before on these […]

12 04 2010
Ten questions to ask your candidates about the UK economy « UK After The Recession

[…] UK manifestly needs a better transport and communications infrastructure in order to operate effectively. What should any government do to make sure that, for […]

9 06 2010
What cowboy put this fiscal deficit in? « UK After The Recession

[…] approach is that it flies in the face of the history of capitalism over the past 100 years. The role of the state, in every developed and developing country in the world, has come to play a bigger and bigger role […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: