opencopy.org

- Bridgstock, Ch. 9 -

A. The Function and Responsibility of Government

The term public has been used historically to differentiate the interest of the community from the interests of the private person. In ancient Greece, it was also closely connected to the preservation and advancement of the polis or City State. Ideally, the public interest and the interest of the polis were one.

The major threat to the polis and the public from the 5^th century B.C. to the 15^th century A.D. was considered to be unbridled individualism. This could take two forms - hubris or self-conceit and greed. Hubris was characterized by pride and a desire for power. Greed was characterized by an addiction to luxury or wealth. Both of these dangers could destroy the polis or the state. Constitutions, therefore, were developed to keep these dangers under control.

Today we live in a market society where individualism is given far greater scope for action. The particular kind of market society that we live in privileges competition and consumption in ways that make the traditional critiques of these characteristics, if not irrelevant, at least old fashioned. At the same time, we continue:

• to recognize the need for governments to act in the general interest;
• to realize that many of the interests of the public cannot be met by the market.

The perceived scope of action for modern governments differs from society to society. It also changes over time. Today, many governments are limiting their involvement in areas like the economy, morality and society.

As we pointed out in earlier lectures, one area that governments cannot afford to leave alone is science and technology. There are at least four reasons why government involvement is necessary:

• science and technology are the engine of the modern economy, but private enterprise does not provide sufficient resources to ensure scientific and technological expertise;
• scientific and technological progress relate to the level of civilization attained in any society; one traditional role of government is to advance the level of knowledge and civilization among its members;
• the social impact of science and technology is so significant that governments need to try to ensure that the community is protected in terms of environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability;
• science and technology are not socially neutral; they have the capacity to generate new and harmful inequalities in society and to negate active citizenship among those that lack access; therefore, governments need to ensure that the benefits of science and technology are distributed in a more balanced way.

It goes without saying that governments and the public can no longer allow the republic of science to determine the direction of science and technology. The discussion of the direction of science and technology needs to be much wider than a “self-governing elite.” If you think about it, this is only common sense. Many scientists are specialists who: 1) have a vested interest in promoting their field; 2) are not completely objective when it comes to determining and conducting research; 3) lack a full awareness of the impact of their investigations.

The role for governments is of particular importance. The job of the public is to be informed citizens. Citizens can articulate communal values and provide a general direction for government policies. But the average citizen cannot be expected to become an expert or policy advisor in complex areas science and technology. Only government has the economic and intellectual resources to provide leadership when it comes to scientific research and technological applications. Government, therefore, needs to represent our collective will in this increasingly complex area.

B. Determining the Collective Will

When the Greek City States wanted to determine the collective will of their citizens, they called everyone together to take their collective pulse on the issues of the day. Those who were citizens were enough like one another - usually farmer warriors - that reaching a consensus was not too difficult. We live in a very different world. Our world is much more urban, specialized, bureaucratic and fragmented. Determining the collective will in Canadian society is a complex balancing act in which we attempt to create the greatest happiness of the greatest number while safeguarding the rights and interests of minority groups and individuals.

The cornerstone of modern democratic system is the ability to vote for politicians and parties who are supposed to represent our wishes. If you give a little thought to this concept, however, you will see just how problematic it is.

1. In a complex society, governments cannot represent the interests of all of the electorate. If you try to meet the wishes of each and every group, you will never achieve the best result for society as a whole.
2. Governmental decisions are usually a compromise where every group has to give up a lot of what they want in order to achieve a result that is satisfactory.
3. Our individual wishes can often be damaging to the community, and ultimately, to ourselves.

None of this suggests that determining the collective will is a straightforward or easy task, only that our representative systems cannot eliminate the responsibility of governments to:

• Develop a comprehensive public policy;
• Articulate an agenda - a course of action - designed to achieve collective goals;
• Determine priorities and alternatives.

Once public policies, agendas, and priorities have been established, then the function of government is to:

• Provide the necessary vision and leadership;
• Allocate sufficient resources to achieve goals;
• Establish a realistic timetable for achieving those goals;
• Evaluate success and make any necessary adjustment.

In a democratic society, this responsibility for determining and establishing public policy does eliminate the need for public input and consultation. What responsibility means is that, at the end of the day, the government needs to be the arbiter of the collective will. Governments cannot shuffle off this responsibility by any number of referenda, public opinion polls, or town hall meetings.

C. Establishing Public Policy

The state, or government, through action or inaction, is an agent of control and is responsible for determining the order, legitimacy, socialization, and economic policies that are in the best interests of its citizens. As such, it will always be more than a mere representative of the members of society. Its major responsibility is to develop and implement public policy. Public policy can be defined as “a deliberate course of action or inaction taken by those in office under the influence and values and pressures about the way resources are to be used in pursuit of objectives or in support of other policies”.

That’s quite a mouthful. What it means is that public policy is a planned activity. It is goal oriented, whether or not the desired goals are ever achieved. Second, public policy implies conscious and deliberate action; even the decision not to act is, in terms of public policy, really a form of action. Third, public policy not only involves, but also is measured by, the allocation of economic resources. If you pay lip service to university education, for example, but don’t fund it properly, you are not really supporting university education. Fourth, public policy is fluid. It changes, not only with the times, but also in accordance with its own achievements. Successes in some areas means that they will become the foundation for future initiatives. Failures in other areas usually means that they will become dormant, at least until the environment or other crucial factors change.

Another interesting characteristic of public policy is that it is subject to many limitations due to the nature of modern political life. Successful public policies are usually the result of negotiation and even struggle. It is very seldom in public life that an agenda is carried through without considerable compromise. The net result is usually equilibrium between a variety of power struggles rather than a completely rational solution.

D. The Major Determinants of Public Policy

i. Distribution of Power

How governments perform these functions differs from society to society and according to historical periods. Our Canadian political system is a federation designed to establish a judicious balance of power between the center and the provinces. Originally, the Canadian system privileged the center because our founding fathers wanted to avoid the kind of antagonisms that resulted in Civil War in the United States. Thus, the federal government controlled economic and military policy while the provinces were given responsibility for education, health and welfare.

Can you see the problem that now besets Canadian politics? In modern society, education, especially in the form of scientific and technological research and training, has become the engine of economic growth. Health and welfare have become the major expenses of modern advanced societies. As a result, the significance of the provinces vis-à-vis the federal government has increased enormously, with a constant demand for greater resources combined with the ability to control those resources. The federal government has tried to maintain its control over economic policy, but can only do so by attaching strings to the revenue that it sends to the provinces.

This battling over the division of resources, particularly in the area of education, makes it difficult for Canada to establish a coordinated public policy with respect to science and technology.

ii. Informal Determinants of Public Policy

Determining public policy is not simply a matter of elaborating on the formal descriptions of political power. In reality, our political representatives have far less real power than they seem for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the way that most parliamentary systems work is that the government is controlled by the political party that wins the most seats in a general election. In effect, this means that those who belong to opposition parties have a very limited ability to influence the decisions of government unless, of course, that government is in a minority and needs to court the other parties in order to remain in government.

Second, the actual decision makers in the governing party tend to be few in number. Many of our elected representatives in parliament are backbenchers. This means that they do not belong to the typically self-perpetuating inner circle of decision makers in government - the cabinet and the caucus. Not only do these individuals have diminished influence but also, if they should happen to criticize the decisions of the government, they lose any chance of promotion and may even be ejected from the party. Most governing parties have parliamentary whips, individuals whose job it is to ensure that all members of the party in parliament vote in support of government legislation, usually in the form of Bills.

In accordance with parliamentary tradition, the other parties do get the chance to debate government policies and to critique the actions of government ministers during formal periods like Question Time. But these staged and theatrical events rarely have any impact on public policy, except when they embarrass ministers into making usually token changes to court public opinion.

Thus, while parliament as a whole is responsible for debating and establishing public policy, it is really a small group of individuals who actually govern. Even within that group, the individuals with real power may be fewer than they appear. Some ministers, such as the finance minister, may have extensive influence, while others, such as the ministers for human resources or tourism, usually have much less. The number of people with power in the Westminster system of parliamentary government is really very small.

When it comes to developing public policy with respect to science and technology, it may be dangerous to have such a small elite moving the levers of power. We need a much more extensive debate on these subjects in parliament than the system currently allows.

iii. The Ministerial Limits of Power

When you look at the parliamentary system even more closely, you will be struck by the limits on the power even of the governing party’s inner circle. Consider that the politicians belonging to the governing party may: 1) only in power for a limited amount of time; 2) often lack a specialist’s understanding of their designated responsibilities or portfolios; 3) spend a great deal of their time focusing on managing their image and engaging in public relations.

While governing parties and ministers may establish the general direction of public policy, they rely a great deal on professional public servants to develop and implement specific agenda. These individuals were never elected; they owe their position to their “knowledge of the subject matter.” These civil servants have enormous influence on the way that agenda goals are prioritized and executed. It is no exaggeration to say that, if they do not approve of the government’s approach, they can scuttle policies quite effectively. Such was the case with Diefenbaker’s conservative government during the 1950s, when the largely liberal civil service sabotaged conservative policies by dragging their feet.

Civil servants have their own distinctive cultures that can act as obstacles to the implementation of public policy. Consider, for example, that any major policy direction will involve more than one government ministry or portfolio. Then realize that each ministerial group will do everything in their power to maximize the significance and influence of their own group. Because Ministers rely on their deputy ministers and departments for all planning and implementation, you can see how public policy initiatives often deteriorate into territorial disputes.

Another characteristic of the culture of some ministries - such as mining, fisheries, or defense –is that it privileges science and technology in ways that stifle public debate. These departments contain many individuals with a scientific or technical background who have a vested interest in promoting what they view as progress in their areas.

iv. The Distinction Between the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government

Even if these territorial disputes can be resolved, that does not mean that implementing public policy is straightforward. There is a sizeable gap between the establishment of an agenda and its effective implementation. In our federal and provincial governments, and in parliamentary systems generally, there is a strict separation between the legislature and the executive. This separation stems from the belief that it is dangerous to put too much power into the hands of a single arm of government. Thus, those who make the laws are different from those who enforce them. Laws are created by elected representatives in parliament, typically in the form of a Bill that must pass a vote in the House of Commons. Professional bodies such as the military or the police enforce these laws.

The judiciary - judges in the various courts - can have an enormous impact on the creation and enforcement of laws. They have the role of interpreting the laws. If a country has a constitution that establishes certain rights, they can even veto certain laws as unconstitutional, thereby rendering them unenforceable.

Finally, the police, the military and other executive sectors can have an enormous impact on the laws by making practical decisions on which ones to enforce and which ones to overlook. Consider, for example, the many laws that have been passed against companies that pollute or practice human rights abuses in the Third World. These laws are rarely enforced, leaving businesses and others with the impression that such actions are tolerated if not strictly legal.

When George Bush became President of the United States, it was clear that the new power structure would be one that was friendly to technological growth at all costs. Bush clearly did not want to enforce any regulations that would interfere with the ability of new technologies to maintain the American way of life. Arguably, that way of life is so inherently consumerist that it will deplete the world’s resources much faster than would otherwise have occurred and hinder attempts to create sustainable environments.

v. Lobbies and Pressure Groups

Let’s say: 1) The government is united; 2) There are good working relationships between the legislative and executive bodies; and 3) That public servants are on board - it is still very difficult to establish and implement public policy. In a complex modern society, individual voters may have precious little influence on government policies, but lobby groups have considerable influence, particularly when they represent powerful economic interests.

Lobby groups put constant pressure on governments to enact legislation (or scrap legislation) in their interest. They often hire professional public relations firms and lobbyists to ensure that the government in power understands their position. If there is a possibility that governments will develop policies that have a negative effect upon them, they make it their business to leak that information to the media or their constituents so that they can engage in battle. Lobbyists can range from well-organized environmental groups to tobacco companies, but they all tap into professional and strategic expertise for the representation of their group.

Some political theorists have suggested that pressure groups and lobbyists are healthy in a modern democracy because they provide representation that would otherwise be lacking in a complex society containing so many different groups. Their positive traits need to be balanced, however, by the fact that professional lobbying requires financial resources that are far out of the reach of many social groups whose needs and goals could be equally worthy. Moreover, those with the financial capacity and public relations expertise to exert the greatest influence on public policy include large and powerful corporations.

There are many ways that corporate lobby or pressure groups can shape policies that relate to science and technology. For example, they could mean that: 1) resources that might have gone to scientific education go into decreasing the taxes of corporations instead; 2) more government funds go into military related technologies than medical science; 3) that scientific research into pollution are stalled.

E. Some Characteristics of Public Policy in Democratic Societies

Given all the influences on public policy outlined above, it should come as no surprise that public policy is a compromise and an equilibrium between contending forces. In theory, public policy is a deliberate, planned and highly rationalistic activity. In practice, it is the net product of negotiation, opportunity and circumstance.

Democratic societies that have adopted the parliamentary system have difficulty implementing public policies from start to finish. That is precisely why government planning in these countries can be such a frustrating experience. Characteristically, public policy is a series of small adjustments to existing circumstances - an incremental rather than a rationalistic approach.

Scientific and technological progress can be a real challenge for democratic societies because it occasionally results in an economic and social upheaval where the typical democratic process needs to be suspended while the entire society readjusts to new circumstances. At such times, government leaders need to provide leadership and to act strategically. The danger is that rapid change or exceptional circumstances will erode our hard earned democratic freedoms.

A case in point is the terrorist act of September 11, 2001. The new brand of terrorism relates profoundly to modern science and technology. Terrorists now have the capacity to create nuclear bombs, to engage in biological warfare, and to implement computer viruses that will turn Western technology against itself. Should we limit personal freedoms in order to ensure security against such attacks? If so, how? How much of our public resources should we allocate to the war against terrorism? Should be reinvest in sophisticated technologies aimed at increasing military power and security against potential enemies? How will these powers impact on the freedom of individuals?

It is interesting to note that many of the solutions that have been proposed to halt global terrorism are scientific and technological. As such, they are supported by many who have a vested interest in promoting military science and related technologies. But public policy should also involve addressing the root causes of terrorism, in particular the foreign policies of the United States.

Of equal and related interest should be the fact that public policy with respect to science and technology so often reinforces military R & D rather than spending in areas of greater public benefit. The reaction to events like September 11, 2001 will merely reinforce this rather lopsided investment in military hardware.

F. Public Expenditure on Science and Technology

Now that we have examined the factors involved in developing and implementing public policy, we can reconsider the relationship between economic growth and the need to invest in science and technology. Without being overly positivistic, it seems clear that nations that fail to invest sufficiently in science and technology - hopefully in positive areas rather than military weapons - will fall behind others. Thus, governments need to have a plan and a strategy for appropriate investment. Some countries more than others.

Small to mid-sized industrial countries like Canada and Australia are becoming increasingly vulnerable in a global marketplace characterized by the science and technology push because the size of the investment needed in R & D is growing all the time. We need to innovate, but we cannot as easily bear the risks and uncertainties of innovation as the larger industrial countries such as America and Japan. The latter have a large domestic market that can help to sustain them, whereas Australians and Canadians need to be competitive in the new global marketplace.

In this neo-Ricardian (intensely competitive) marketplace, we are now being squeezed by the large and smaller newly industrialized powers. For example, we now face stiff competition from countries such as Singapore and South Korea, which are achieving sizable cost advantages because of low wage rates. In order to escape from this squeeze play, we need to invest strategically in R & D. Possible public policy initiatives might include :

• Identifying and targeting market niches in high-technology;
• Encouraging the development of multi-national corporations within our borders;
• Scientific and technological co-operation with other small to mid-sized economies.

The first initiative capitalizes on what might appear to be a weakness. We have few large companies, but we can grow innovative small companies that can compete in particular niches. The problem here is that these companies will never generate the size of investment needed to be a global player in the science and technology sweepstakes. Encouraging the development of multi-national corporations might provide greater capital for R & D, and this strategy has achieved some success in countries like Switzerland, Sweden (Volvo), and the Netherlands. But the historical record suggests that, even in these countries, economies of scale are rare and success remains precarious. Co-operative ventures have been tried in some countries, but they have achieved only small benefits.

Clearly, there exists a huge public policy challenge for the governments of countries like Australia and Canada. As Ian Lowe argues, this challenge is not likely to be met if these governments continue to operate in a classical economic analytical framework. If we let market forces operate, or if we merely tinker with the market, we are not likely to get out of the squeeze play. If anything, government planning, and a highly integrated strategic approach are needed. The essential characteristics of this approach will be:

• Economic forecasting and foresight;
• Effective priority setting;
• The adoption of progressive management methods for prompting and concluding research;
• A rigid benchmarking process to ensure goals are met;
• Attention to issues of intellectual property and the security of information;
• The establishment of linkages between all stages of research, discovery, production and application.

Ironically, the one advantage that countries like Australia and Canada have over the United States is that we don’t have anywhere near the same aversion to government intervention. Therefore, we have a much better chance of aligning public sector investment and research to commercial goals. In the United States, this alignment is nowhere near as tight as it could be.

G. Concluding Remarks

Such a targeted investment in science and technology will undoubtedly offend those who believe that the production of knowledge should be separated from its commercial uses. It will anger a great many scientists, who want to be able to determine the direction of their own research, and to operate within a republic of science. It will require government leadership and communication with the public, which has very legitimate concerns about the implications of science and technology for society.

As we have seen, setting public policy is already difficult enough in democratic societies. Establishing a scientific and technological strategy, therefore, will require dynamic leadership and considerably more planning than is common in market oriented societies. The alternative is not acceptable. The United States may survive the lack of an overall policy and integrated strategy for science and technology, but countries like Canada will not.

---

The notes presented here are for the AK NATS 1760.06 “Science, Technology and Society” course offered in the Fall/Winter Semester of 2001/2002 by the Atkinson College of York University, Toronto, Canada and taught by John Dwyer. The lectures are based on the following texts:

1. Martin Bridgstock et al, Science, Technology and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1998), ISBN 0-521-58735-2
2. Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster, Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life (New York, Routledge, 1999), ISBN 0-415-16115-0
3. Albert H. Teich, Technology and the Future (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000), ISBN 0-312-01885-1

For more about John Dwyer, visit: http://www.sayitagain.com/ivorytower/