Government funding of public services, instead of people selecting and paying for the services they use, is largely an ideological choice
The legal system, as described in Chapter 5, must be properly funded. Some of it can be privatised, but the government remains responsible for its provision. The only other discretion that politicians have is to delay investment and maintenance, but that might be short-sighted. For example, earlier failure to invest in prison capacity led to the British government being forced to announce: Prisoners to be released early to ease overcrowding in 2024.
Defence spending is discussed in the next chapter (7.4.6). It is largely driven by foreign policy choices, as described later in this chapter (6.7.7).
The decision to provide public funding for health, education, and social care, reflects people’s political ideology and moral attitudes. They can be regarded as socio economic rights, and there is a deep disagreement between individualists and collectivists on these issues – as described above (6.7.1).
Both education and health also affect the productivity of the workforce and, therefore, the health of the economy (3.2.5). Investment in training is particularly important with today's rapid economic changes.
Decisions to fund discretionary public services to improve the quality of people's lives, such as recreational facilities and support for the arts, depend upon a purely political assessment of what people want. Views tend to be divided according to ideology, so some consultation and negotiation is appropriate before spending the money.
Many Western liberal democracies have chosen to fund discretionary public services. People's preferences for public funding are mainly ideological, although there are some aspects which cross party lines. On 27 March 2017 for example, the Washington Post published an article entitled How do Americans feel about single-payer health care? It’s complicated – which showed a 41% level of Republican support for the idea, even though it is a collectivist concept.
If governments try to reduce the cost of public services, by making them free for those below a certain income threshold, they benefit the wealthy at the expense of the low-paid (3.2.4.5). Such decisions are likely to be affected by the politicians’ calculations on who are their supporters.
Governments need to face up to difficult choices. An Economist article, How rationing became the fashion under the Tories, commented that “Britain’s public services must become more efficient. Making them so will not be cheap, but it beats the alternatives. Britons must either pay more for those services, expect less or face up to a future of erratic provision, in which stamina, persistence and luck trump need”.
(This is an archive of a page intended to form part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. The latest versions are at book contents).