Polder model piece, land piece, I wrote last week. So this is what we need to talk about. This week we’re looking at the core players, not the people (they only matter a little bit), but their functions. There are at least four players. Politics, Advisor and the social partners, or Capital and Labour. We’ll expand the number of players later, but that’s needlessly complicating now.
The Advisor is perhaps the most surprising of the core players. What is her role? In a country deeply divided, formerly along religious lines, today along countless others, the Advisor is a neutral party. She objectifies and analyses: what are the facts and how should we understand them? How big is a problem and for whom? What are the possible solutions and what are their pros and cons? The Advisor’s answers to all of these questions are value-free, as best they can. They apply to Catholics and Protestants. For the employer and the employee. The Advisor is in the service of no one and of everyone. The Advisor works for the public interest.
That we were involved early in the Netherlands with the establishment of the Central Bureau of Statistics (1899) and that, from just after the Second World War, we have had beautiful planning bureaus for the economy (CPB), society (SCP) and the environment. (PBL), is no coincidence. Consensus democracy needs facts and good analyzes of problems and possible solutions – neutral! – so that the directors find common ground in the facts and can take well-considered decisions.
For decades civil servants were also regarded as real advisers to politics, in other words neutral and subservient to the general interest. And such officials still exist, although I don’t think they are in the majority anymore. The nature of much of the bureaucracy’s advice, the ‘fifth power’, has changed. In many cases, the public interest has made way for the much narrower survival interest of the minister or state secretary concerned.
Capital and Labor are comparable players according to their function. They do business with each other, for example when concluding collective labor agreements about wages, working conditions and pensions, matters that directly affect the day-to-day worries of employers and workers. And, through consultation in the Social and Economic Council, they get a say in legislation and regulations in exchange for support.
The problem with Capital and Labor is that their power base has been eroded, they have lost authority, and are therefore much less able to provide support for proposed policies by politicians. The so-called ‘organization rate’, the percentage of workers who are union members, has been falling for decades. And many trade associations face the same problem: companies no longer want to be members. Workers only listen to the union boss when it suits them. Companies hardly need a reasonable call from their foreman or woman.
The moderating influence of Labor and Capital is further eroding with the emergence of more radical competitors. Education union too good? Then teachers organize something themselves. Successfully. LTO Netherlands too accommodating? Angry farmers will unite themselves. In any case, a lot of noise. And companies are doing the same, behind the back of VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland, they are doing the (lobby) work themselves.
The neutral Advisor therefore still exists, although the number is decreasing in number. The political administration can rely less and less on Labor and Capital to deliver. And Politics itself? Next week.
Frank Kalshoven is founder of De Argumentenfabriek. React? [email protected].