Some critical responses to the Good Society document.

The following are selected ideas – some of which offer alternative views to those in the innovative and comprehensive ‘Building the Good Society’ document – towards the rejuvenation and transformation needed for the future of social democracy in Europe.

1. Developing an increased and more effective role for the state in the economy and in social progress towards the dual goal of high but ecologically sustainable growth and equality of opportunity from birth
This requires a sophisticated regulation of the market to make it function truly efficiently and in compatibility with the common interest, and to prevent devastating crises, with the participation of all actors and new, built-in, instruments. As well as providing advanced social services, this also includes engaging direct public sector responsibility in areas like technology. This is clearly different from the ‘efficient market’ approach – as is necessary – but neither is it a return to the Keynesian era. At the macroeconomic level it would be beneficial to draw on solid European and wider experience – as distinct from the document’s views on the Central Bank’s role, deficits, the pay-as-you-go system and capital controls. A higher level of taxation on speculative activities is necessary. At the microeconomic level, reform of the governance and technology of European enterprises, especially SMEs, would be to the benefit of all.

2. Developing the structures of the knowledge economy, which has a potential beyond our imagination, especially with the increasing role of basic science in production.
This includes areas like health, and also the production of knowledge and ideas. Accordingly, there is a need for the state, and society, to ensure for everyone, as a basic element of life, opportunities for advanced and life long education. As distinct from the document, I believe that investment in people’s knowledge needs should be given priority, as it is becoming a crucial factor in most fields, including gender equality and political power. The objective would be the development of a ‘Social Knowledge Economy’.

3. Making employment creation a distinct key policy factor, with new criteria being developed for areas such as investment, and new forms of alliances being devised with both the trade unions and the private sector.
Wider technological choices would contribute to this goal. Ensuring higher skills will be crucial. And this will also contribute to preventing the exclusion of young people from mainstream life.

4. The requirements of climate change and ecology need to be treated as essential elements in all economic activity.
The knowledge economy can make a considerable contribution to this aim while achieving high growth.

5. While its role will increase, the state should at the same time become much less rigid, hierarchical, and open to vested interests; and much fairer, more merit- and rules-based, more competent, more in line with the common interest, more friendly, more ready to benefit from participation, and more proactive in finding solutions to social problems and individual needs.
It should focus vigorously on the task of creating the conditions, and ensuring the opportunities, that will be conducive to a context of freedom, encouraging progress so that people can ‘empower themselves’, as it was pertinently put in the document. This involves ‘the freedom to determine what we want, value and eventually decide to choose’, in the recent words of Amartya Sen. I therefore believe the term ‘Progressive Society’ is preferable to ‘Good Society’.

6. The clear stand of the document for stronger EU integration is also necessary for achieving the objectives above, and would constitute a favourable example for the rest of the world.
On the other hand, using obstacles to enlargement that are outside EU criteria would harm the Union, notably its values.

7. In line with Beck and Grande’s argument, interaction among cultures on the basis of universal principles, rather than multiculturalism alone, would contribute more to progress in this field.

8. European social democratic parties would benefit greatly from debating more complex and difficult issues with the public; becoming more merit-based and bringing closer politics and problem solving; having more decentralised and welcoming yet effective governance; using the Internet more for transient but constantly recurring relations; being close to reality and wide open to change; and achieving a spotless record in terms of integrity in office.