"Voice" or "Exit?"
2004-01-23 08:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipshttp://www.adamsmithblog.org/archives/000202.php
Alex Singleton of the Adam Smith Institute writes:
Collectivists like 'voice' as the system for improving society. We get a say. We should all be forced to go to state schools, but we can say what we think in public meetings. Local politicians, instead of us individually, should decide the company that collects our rubbish, but we can attend surgeries and express a view.
I am not a fan of 'voice'. It only works effectively when there is also the option of 'exit'. In other words, giving your opinion only really works if you can move your custom elsewhere. If you complain about waiting lists in the NHS, not very much happens. As a GP said to me recently, "It's the NHS. You've just got to take what you're given."
Where there is only 'voice', we are told that we have to wait our turn. We are told to take into account the requirements of other consumers. We are told to be grateful for what we have.
'Exit' is much better than 'voice'. This is because market forces work. Public sector altruism doesn't. As Adam Smith said: "Public services are never better performed than when their reward comes in consequence of their being performed, and is proportional to the diligence employed in performing them."
Trade unions and many claiming to favour equality do not like 'exit'. They want to deny poor people the ability to make choices about their public services. Rich people can of course pay twice, but poor people do not have their option. The less well off in our society need 'exit' more than anyone else.
Alex Singleton of the Adam Smith Institute writes:
Collectivists like 'voice' as the system for improving society. We get a say. We should all be forced to go to state schools, but we can say what we think in public meetings. Local politicians, instead of us individually, should decide the company that collects our rubbish, but we can attend surgeries and express a view.
I am not a fan of 'voice'. It only works effectively when there is also the option of 'exit'. In other words, giving your opinion only really works if you can move your custom elsewhere. If you complain about waiting lists in the NHS, not very much happens. As a GP said to me recently, "It's the NHS. You've just got to take what you're given."
Where there is only 'voice', we are told that we have to wait our turn. We are told to take into account the requirements of other consumers. We are told to be grateful for what we have.
'Exit' is much better than 'voice'. This is because market forces work. Public sector altruism doesn't. As Adam Smith said: "Public services are never better performed than when their reward comes in consequence of their being performed, and is proportional to the diligence employed in performing them."
Trade unions and many claiming to favour equality do not like 'exit'. They want to deny poor people the ability to make choices about their public services. Rich people can of course pay twice, but poor people do not have their option. The less well off in our society need 'exit' more than anyone else.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 07:45 pm (UTC)"Capitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter. Gimbels, if I get really rank with the clerk, "Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it gets really ridiculous, I go, Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always got o Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company. Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread."