I ended last week’s contribution with this statement: “…state support for individuals and businesses is a positive thing as long as this encourages initiative and independence. This is probably what today’s liberal society expects – but that is a discussion for another day”.

The message from the government continues to be that it wants to make it worth it for unemployed persons living on State benefits to move into work. However, it is worth asking what sort of economic policy today’s liberal society expects.

One needs to make it clear that although the term ‘liberal’ is widely used, not everyone gives it the same meaning. So we have situations where persons support liberal economic policies but are against liberal social policies. This is evident, for example, in the US, where persons supporting the Republican Party believe that State involvement in the economy should be minimised as much as possible (and so support liberal economic policies) but are against abortion (and so against some, if not all, liberal social policies).

Maybe we should not be looking for answers that may address this apparent dichotomy, but look for answers that seek to bypass it

I would like refer to the type of messages that businesses are sending out to attract customers as part of their marketing strategy. The substance of these messages is consumer empowerment. The consumer should be allowed to choose what to buy, how to use it, when to buy it and where to buy it from. Consumer choice should not be limited in any way and, as a consequence, businesses should be allowed all the space possible to satisfy the consumer’s requirements.

Such a policy implies, even if it is unstated, that the market should be allowed to operate unfettered by regulations. This is in effect the essence of economic liberalism, which goes much beyond the concept that the State should have a regulatory role in the economy, rather than an operating role. Such a policy implies that, even in its regulatory role, the State’s presence in the economy should be as small as possible. By definition this would even mean reducing the level of State dependence on the part of both individuals and businesses.

Thus the trend that is emerging (some would argue quite correctly that it has already emerged), is that we, as individuals, want to live in a liberal society, where legislation on social issues is as liberal as possible, and we also want to exercise fully our rights as consumers.

We are experiencing something similar with regard to employment conditions. Persons under the age of 30 are seeking the conditions of work similar to what one would find in global technology companies. They would like their working hours to suit their lifestyle. They would like to work from any location around the world, as long as they do what is expected of them. They are asking to be given as much freedom as possible in their job, meaning that they do not want the labour market to impose limitations on them.

However, are we prepared to live with liberal economic policies? Are we willing to live in a society where the role of the State in the economy allows us unlimited consumer choice? And if it allows us unlimited consumer choice, are we willing to accept that businesses operate with as little limitations as possible?

I suppose that the answers to these questions will contain a great number of qualifications and will not be an unqualified yes or no. And if this were the case, are we trying to fit a square peg into a right hole? Maybe we should not be looking for answers that may address this apparent dichotomy, but look for answers that seek to bypass it, by shaping the economy such that it thrives on initiative and entrepreneurship, while maintaining social cohesion.

When one looks at the economy of those countries that are finding it hard to bounce back from the recession that has hit them, one does note a lack of such initiative and entrepreneurship.

There is the expectation on the part of people that banks do more, that businesses do more, that governments do more, but not that they do more.

There is an evident cultural issue. They want the right to be free but do not want the responsibility which that economic freedom brings with it. The attitude is that the State should not interfere in the economy until such time that they want it to interfere.

I fear that this culture is also invading our economy. One notes it when a person loses his or her job, which would have been considered as a high paying job. They would not like the State to interfere so that wages and salaries do not spin put of control. However, when they then lose their job, they want the State to interfere to find them another job that is high paying as their previous job.

I believe we need to accept that a liberal society needs a liberal economy. This does not necessarily have to mean an economy where the role of the State is reduced to a minimum, as in the classical definition of economic liberalism. As we seek to redefine most words that end in ‘ism’, from socialism to capitalism to nationalism, we also need to redefine ‘liberalism’.

That would be an interesting debate that may have a long-lasting effect on our economy. As a start, can we think of an economy that enables initiative, innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive, while creating and promoting a culture where the common good prevails? Can we think of a society where active citizenship prevails and we have an economy that does not exclude persons?

Can we think of an economy where the rights of the individual (person or business), as an economic player, are safeguarded, while that individual respects fully one’s responsibilities to society?