|
|
|
The Basic Income Grant: Poverty, Politics and Policy-making
|
|
| |
6. A concluding thought
I'd like to conclude with a real life story that describes how I think this debate will play out.
Last year NALEDI acted as the advisor to unions in stopping the privatisation of Spoornet (the railways). Initially, NALEDI did research showing that privatisation of the railways would result in poor areas being cut off from other areas and that economic development objectives would be undermined. This research was ignored, even though it was entirely accurate.
Then the union threatened strike action unless the research was considered. That engagement with the research then happened, and eventually the government conceded that its privatisation plans would indeed not have the benefits that were claimed.
So in February 2002, the President in his Address to the Nation stated that, finally, government and labour have reached an agreement on restructuring a state asset. What was omitted, of course, was that the agreement was that the privatisation plan was not going to work!
Nonetheless, the point of the story is this: the research and appeals to reason, while important in making a case, ultimately do not determine policy. Research and appeals to reason can be ignored. When power is mobilised behind a proposal, only then does a debate on the merits of the issue become likely. In other words, it is power that facilitates a real debate.
And it is there that those in favour of a BIG need to focus their energies.
|
|
Related documents