New Zealand's Privatization Push
Devastated the Country,
Rather Than Saving It
Murray Dobbin
[Reprinted from The National Post, 15 August
2000]
It has been so long since anyone in the business press has praised
the New Zealand "miracle," it's almost as if we imagined the
whole thing. But, of course, the current silence is really no mystery.
The 15-year free market experiment has been an unmitigated disaster.
The suffering caused among ordinary New Zealanders is well known: the
highest youth suicide rate in the developed world; the proliferation
of food banks; huge increases in violent and other crime; the
bankruptcy of half the farms in the country; the economic disruption
of hundreds of thousands of lives; health care, education and other
social services devastated by the mad marketplace scientists.
But, of course, neo-liberal ideologues don't hold much truck with the
human consequences of their experiments. So let's examine those things
they do care about. The revolutionaries promised to tear down the "debt
wall," unleash spectacular economic growth, spur foreign
investment and productivity, create enormous new wealth and new and
better jobs.
They failed on every count. Instead of a brave new economy, they
delivered an economic version of Frankenstein's monster. The initial
wave of changes -- deregulation, privatization, tariff elimination --
was justified by the infamous debt crisis. This was a ruse all along.
Even Sir Roger Douglas admitted this when I interviewed him in 1992.
The "crisis" New Zealand faced post-election in 1984 was a
currency crisis brought on by Mr. Douglas himself.
As for the debt in 1984, it was NZ$22-billion, but after 10 years of
experimenting, it had doubled to NZ$45-billion -- in spite of the
sell-off of NZ$16-billion in state enterprises. Today, it has finally
returned to 1984 levels, but only through more Crown asset sales. And
economic growth? In the years 1985-92, average economic growth in the
OECD countries totalled 20%, while in New Zealand it was negative, at
-1%. The promised creation of enormous new wealth went into reverse:
Real GDP in 1992, at 5%, was below the 1985-86 level. A burst of
growth from 1993 to 1995 petered out, and the economy steadily
declined until it dipped into negative territory in 1998, posting the
fourth-worst growth in the OECD.
The transformation of the economy was supposed to spur foreign
investment, but it mostly meant a feeding frenzy on domestic corporate
assets. In 1993, the proportion of GDP in investments was just 70% of
what it was in 1984.
The restructuring of the economy failed most dramatically on the
unemployment front, and the country has never managed to get back to
anywhere near the 1984 level of 4%. The "workless and wanting
work" figure peaked at more than 18% in 1993. In 1999, that
figure had been reduced only to 11.2%.
The radicals also promised increases in productivity, but again, they
failed to deliver. After eight years of restructuring and massive
labour deregulation, New Zealand's productivity began a steady decline
in comparison with its neighbour, Australia. From 1978 to 1990, the
rates had been similar. The gap steadily increased between 1990 and
1998, with Australia posting a 21.9% increase and New Zealand just
5.2%. Only the wealthy in New Zealand could see any benefit from this
destructive exercise in social engineering. Between 1984 and 1996, the
top 10% of income earners measurably increased their share of total
income. The lowest 10% lost 21.6% of their 1984 income. More than 50%
of the total working population had lower real income in 1996 than in
1984.
There are lessons from New Zealand, but they do not involve adopting
that tortured country as a model. The first lesson is that the
unfettered application of ideology is inevitably destructive -- not
just to democracy, social peace and equality but to the economy. Even
as the revolution continued to deliver disastrous results, its
promoters claimed it was because it had not gone far enough.
The second lesson is that parliamentary democracy Anglo-Saxon style
has proven extremely vulnerable to the ravages of ideology. A virtual
executive dictatorship can implement policies that are never even
debated during elections -- as happened in New Zealand in 1984. The
only thing that stopped the zealots from going even further was the
introduction of proportional representation in the early 1990s and the
subsequent election of minority governments.
And that leads to the last lesson: Globalization is not inevitable,
nor is it irreversible. The current New Zealand government (a
coalition of a chastened Labour party and the left-wing Alliance) is
unfortunately still committed to signing free trade and investment
agreements. But it is reversing many of the most destructive policies.
Included in this rethink are a reversal of the privatization of
Accident Compensation Insurance; an immediate rise in pensions; a halt
to the sale of public housing and a commitment to rebuilding the
public housing stock; the appointment of a review committee on
electricity pricing; the freezing of tariffs on clothing and footwear;
and the re-recognition of unions.
The pity is that New Zealanders had to suffer through so much in the
first place.
Murray Dobbin is a freelance writer and
author based in Vancouver.
|