Efficiency, of course, is the traditional model in our society. We try to promote the most effective businesses possible, focusing entirely on producing the highest value end-product at the lowest possible cost. Labor is simply an input in this process. In order to get the “most bang for the buck,” business owners thus try to weed out inefficient labor. Anyone who routinely slacks off, who lacks ingenuity, or who is otherwise found to be a subpar employee is subject to dismissal. The idea is to “weed out” the bad labor until only the best and brightest workers are part of your team.
Social inclusion focuses on very different goals. The issue in question is not the quality or cost of the final product. It is about promoting the worker as a human being, guaranteeing that everyone has decent working and living conditions, reducing exorbitant inequalities and integrating marginalized groups into broader society. After all, what is the point of development if some are excluded from the process? The concept of social inclusion is that we advance all together, or not at all. This means allowing the least productive members of our society to participate fully as equals and for all work to be valued.
The common discourse in center-left politics focuses on the idea of the “social safety net.” That is, we are all part of the same system, but there must be a net to catch those who fall to the bottom and provide them some basic support to integrate themselves once more into mainstream society. In conservatives circles (best exemplified by the modern Republican Party in the U.S.), the idea of the social safety net is undesirable because it creates a two-tiered system separating productive and unproductive members of society: those who produce through the labor market and those who mooch off government welfare programs and depend on the hard work of others to prop them up. While I certainly abhor the conservative solution to simply abandon the pretext of a social safety net altogether and let those at the bottom continue to fall further from society, it does raise a very interesting point about the dangers of a two-tiered system. An economy that categorizes people into two groups (those in the capitalist labor market and those dependent on government welfare) does not promote social inclusion. What, then, is the solution? I for one certainly do not know, and unfortunately I do not think anyone really does. The first step is to better understand the problem.
There can be no doubt that efficiency is important in all work. People have needs and desires for goods and services that others produce. Getting the job done well is important in any area, be it a government agency promoting adoption services, a barbershop offering cheap but excellent haircuts, or a factory producing the latest cell phone models. Without efficiency, we would not be able to take advantage of all that our society is capable of offering us. Anyone who has been in a work environment with people who are lazy or incompetent knows just how frustrating this can be. Without this drive for efficiency, we would not have achieved the quality of life we now enjoy today.
How then, to reconcile efficiency and social inclusion? How do we create a single-tiered system of work and production where we are able to increase the quantity and quality of goods and services while enabling everyone to benefit, while perhaps not completely equally, at least to an extent that is reasonably fair? And in this system, how do we reward and incentivize our best and brightest individuals, those natural leaders and inventors whose ingenuity and determination has propelled our societal success for generation upon generation? Is it possible to harness their unique abilities without placing them on a pedestal above the rest of humanity?
When I look at our current capitalist economy, which has never been able to operate at full employment and depends on seeking out the cheapest labor possible (think: sweatshops) and on “weeding out” the weak, I find it harder to believe that it will be possible to reconcile efficiency and social inclusion within our current paradigm. We need to think outside of the box, taking all of these questions into account.
(And for the record, when I talk about a new paradigm I am certainly not advocating a transition to the stale, state-led communist development model that has historically failed in numerous countries around the world.)
Understanding and reconciling efficiency and social inclusion is, I believe, the greatest socioeconomic challenge facing our world community.
I really like the way that you lay out the efficiency/social inclusion trade off here, Patrick. Very clear writing and an important dilemma. There isn’t always a trade off of course—social exclusion contributes to several forms of inefficiency (crime, increased health costs, etc.). And redistributive policies can increase economic growth because the poor are more likely to spend money in their communities rather than save. But sometimes there is a trade off, and I guess we need to look at such situations on a case by case basis.
ReplyDelete