Pages

Monday, June 12, 2023

Oliver Hartwich: Has Ardern altered the course of NZ?


Governments, they come and go. It’s the way of democracy. They usually start off with grand ambitions to transform the country. Governments make promises that often seem too good to be true. And sure, some governments even manage to deliver on some of their promises. But still, that does not make these governments “transformational.”

As we all know, it’s only a select few governments that truly change the trajectory of a nation.

In New Zealand’s history, there used to be only two such “transformational” governments:

The first is the Labour government under Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage in the 1930s. It created the modern welfare state.

The second government that merits mention is the fourth Labour government by Prime Minister David Lange, which governed from 1984. It brought about sweeping economic and social reforms, liberalising New Zealand.

So the question today is this: Did we just witness a third transformative government in New Zealand’s history?

Would it be right to compare the administration of former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to the likes of Savage and Lange? Has Ardern altered the course of New Zealand?

Well, it’s certainly premature for any definitive conclusions at this stage.

History has shown us that the true impact of events can only be fully understood with the benefit of hindsight.

Nevertheless, it’s fair to say that Ardern’s administration did not maintain the status quo. In fact, Ardern deviated from the policy consensus that had been in place since the late 1980s. Only time will tell if the country continues to follow that path or if Ardern’s policies will be quickly undone.

So let us look at Ardern’s legacy – and especially her economic legacy.

Before she became Prime Minister, you might not have expected her to leave a big mark on economic policy. At least she had never shown much interest in economics. As an MP since 2008, she was mainly involved in social causes, except for holding the small business portfolio for a while. But as Prime Minister, Ardern lost no time to revolutionise New Zealand’s economic policy framework. In particular, she set out to undo the decisions of the fourth Labour government.

When “Rogernomics” started in 1984, Ardern was only four years old. But she said many times, the social impact of those reforms under Minister of Finance Roger Douglas made her wary of market-based solutions. So, in that way, you could read Ardern’s whole economic agenda as an antidote to “Rogernomics”.

That was a significant change from Ardern’s predecessors. Because, despite their differences, all governments since the late 1980s had previously followed roughly similar policies: limited government, an independent Reserve Bank focusing on price stability, balanced budgets through the economic cycle, liberal labour markets, and a limited social safety net.

However, under Ardern, the basic pillars of New Zealand’s post-1984 settlement were demolished one after the other.

To start, Ardern appeared more at ease with increasing state spending, with her government recording the largest spending hike among recent administrations in New Zealand. Ardern also made a departure from the traditional inflation-targeting practice of the past few decades, instead providing the Reserve Bank with fresh objectives for employment and even house prices.

While New Zealand’s labour market was once extremely adaptable, Ardern initiated the compulsory industry-wide Fair Pay Agreements, which, despite their positive name, are predicted to strengthen unions and result in lower employment rates.

Openness to international talent was another longstanding policy setting in New Zealand. It had long viewed itself as a destination for migrants, and accepting them benefited the country.

Ardern changed that setting by first closing the borders a little to migrants – and then entirely during Covid.

A combination of bureaucratic incompetence and a barely concealed anti-foreigner bias has slowed inward migration even after the pandemic.

Ardern’s government introduced an avalanche of centralisation to this list of policy choices.

In various areas, including health care, polytechnics, and water infrastructure, policy decisions are being transferred to higher levels of government.

As a result, bureaucracies that make these decisions have become cumbersome and distant from the people they’re supposed to serve.

So, Ardern’s economic approach placed a much greater emphasis on the role of the state. And it changed the basic settings which had been in place for more than three decades before. In this sense, Ardern stands in line with Savage and Lange in that she delivered a radical turning point.

And yet: Savage and Lange are now regarded as seminal Prime Ministers because their policy choices had a long-lasting effect.

Right now, we cannot know whether Ardern’s choices will stand the test of time. Her successor Chris Hipkins has already started undoing some of Ardern’s policy work. And, of course, should the opposition win this year’s election, there could well be a revision of many of Ardern’s decisions.

It’s too early to say whether former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s administration will go down in history as a transformative government. But it is clear that she made significant changes to New Zealand’s economic policy framework. Her economic legacy will be an interesting topic for historians and economists to study for years to come.

Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was originally published by The Common Room and is published here with kind permission.

6 comments:

Anna Mouse said...

The very fact that Savage and Langes 'transformations' have been kept to endure tells the story of Ardern.

Already, as you state Hipkins is dismantling her 'transformations' because the people see them as having no beneficial outcome and he knows it.

The fact that National will demolish Arderns playground from the Reserve Bank mandate, her centralisational framework from Three waters to Te Pukenga (an utter failure) and her apartheid Health policy etc.

These are her legacy that are already being removed and will, should National gain power be excised.

They will be gone because they have been proven across history in many countrys to have no benefit to the citizens and often bring misery because the chosen few rise and the masses fall.....we already see this happening in New Zealand today and Ardern is barely missed.

History will judge Ardern and the judgement will be harsh but fair. It however she will not be in the league with MJS or Lange.

Anonymous said...

She tried as they are still trying to make this country communist!! It must be reversed or we are doomed.

CXH said...

Yet another article bemoaning the lack of open immigration. Yet never an answer on how increases can ever be anything but detrimental to our failing balance of payments.

Would like to see some reasoning on how the Initiative thinks a blossoming population, where the majority require lots of imports, a tiny minority help exports, is good for our countries future.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter what party are voted in, they will do as they are told to do by the UN and other UN related NGO's via the corporate structure that is called government. The NWO One World Communist Government agenda marches along no matter who we vote for.

Robert Arthur said...

Surely Ardern's most enduring legacy will be the way she has set up NZ forand commenced transformation to a maori controlled, matters maori obsessed nation, with a stone age based culture and highly inefficient hybrid language, mostly contrived

Gaynor said...

The education change in the 1850s by Fraser and Beeby were the beginning of the erosion of NZ's quality education system based on traditional liberal principles. Progressive education gradually ,over the subsequent decades removed all those methods and content for a pedagogy and curriculum that are now proved to be effective.
In contrast The social policies of Savage and Fraser were not destructive. This is because the educational and social philosophies were totally different. One had much of Fabian socialism the other adopted many of the ideas of Bellamy.