What
a trio ; so what can they add to the current heated discussion
on universality and/or targeting for public services in Scotland ?
Actually , they all in different ways
throw some light on aspects of this policy
conundrum , part of a discussion that
will not disappear , even if protagonists sling the most damning of comments at
each other….heir of Blair…. Osborne in a kilt ….. neo –liberal etc. …Tartan Tories.
Let’s start with Nicola Sturgeon , who , handling First Minister’s questions while
Alex Salmon was recently away, told her
main opponents :
“I
remind Johann Lamont gently that the people of Scotland chose: in May 2011,
they overwhelmingly chose free prescription charges, a freeze on the council
tax and free university education for working-class
young people . “ [emphasis RK ].
And Zola ? In The Red Lily he famously wrote that:
“The law, in its majestic
equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in
the streets, and to steal bread."
Ken Bates, for his part, once offered a typically direct comment to a
celebrity pressing him for a comp ticket : -
“There are no complimentary tickets; they’re just tickets
somebody else has paid for .”
These three comments all have relevance to our current , and continuing,
debate on Universality. They address – in this order :
·
who we provide for with such universal services ;
·
who actually benefits from such services ;
·
and how we make choices about what our available tax revenues are spent on, because
as all economists would say , all resources are scarce.
Start with Nicola Sturgeon. To be fair , she was speaking in a heated exchange , and
probably extempore, but what she is recorded as saying in the Parliamentary
Report is not current public policy
in Scotland . Our current HE regime
doesn’t just provide under-graduate education with no direct fees for ‘working class kids’ ; it provides that
same arrangement for everybody regardless of income, or family income, if they
meet the criteria for fee-free entry : status as a Scottish resident or EU resident from countries other than the
3 other home countries of the UK .
So does this statement [ made twice in the same session ] signal the possibility of some policy change
?
Perhaps ; because at the same time that these statements were being made , change
to means testing for student bursaries was announced by the government .
The only students to get full bursaries of £1750 per annum will be those in
households with total incomes under £16999 per year, all others will be subject
to some form of income assessment and no bursaries will be awarded to a student
in a household with income of over £34000….universalism or means testing?
Zola? Well his famous phrase
has most often been used as a powerful critique of simplistic notions of
liberty .
However, it can also be applied to simplistic assumptions that universality of provision will guarantee that
all classes will take advantage of that provision . Simply because a facility
or service is provided ‘free’ or with no initial entry charge does not mean it
is uniformly used or enjoyed by the whole social spectrum of any population .
Higher education is actually just example . Much of the available research data
tells us that access to HE – whether there are fees or no fees – is taken up
more widely by the already well educated and the already privileged . In some
of the ancient Scottish universities this phenomenon is widely acknowledged –
but to date very little has been done about it. Interestingly , this is an
aspect of HE in Scotland that the government is now pressing the elite universities on.
There are other examples . Many public galleries and museums do not charge for entry to regular collections; the visitor
profile is skewed up the social class scale despite this .
It appears from early research that free eye tests for older people , with their collateral capacity to provide early diagnosis of various
health conditions , has an uptake skewed toward higher social class .
The reality of experience, whether in Scotland or the wider UK is the same whether such facilities and services are nationally
provided or locally operated. Discretionary and ostensibly universal services and facilities are most enjoyed
by the already privileged .
So, Ken Bates – what’s he got
to do with all this ? His colourful riposte
about the comp. tickets is a pretty concise and graphic metaphor for the
opportunity costs associated with any decision on resources.
It is simple , readily apparent , and there are countless examples that when resources are
constrained – and they always are – choosing to spend on one activity is also a
choice not to spend on some other
activity or, in technical terms , to
misallocate resources.
Public services of most kinds other
than classic ‘public goods’ sit on a 4 dimension matrix balanced
between the universally provided and the targeted; between those
organised free at the point of access
and those that are charged for on consumption rather than through general
taxation .
The balance of this matrix varies
over time and from society to society whether it’s Scotland, Scandinavia or
Texas .
We probably haven’t got that mix
right in Scotland ; or elsewhere in the UK ; or indeed elsewhere outside these
islands. Discussing this is of more
value than shouting about it with a tone of fake certainty.
