A Rising Tide That Does in Fact Lift All Boats
In his book, Laboratories of Democracy, David Osbourne shares about innovative governors from the 1970's and 1980's who had some success catalyzing economic growth and ensuring that there was a broad experience of it across socio-economic classes. He emphasizes the importance of and difficulty in doing both, and I wholeheartedly agree. Too often, we try to do one or the other, and don't take the time to figure out how we can do both.
And too often, we do this because we are stuck on our political agendas. The left is loath to put their trust in "trickle-down" economics, even though a rising tide does in fact lift all boats. The right is loath to put their trust in direct services to the poorest among us, even though a rising tide doesn't in fact lift all boats equally. And both the left and the right would have you believe that any gain by the rich must mean a loss by the poor, and vice versa.
And while that is often the case, it doesn't have to be. But to bring about economic growth AND a broad participation in it by all socio-economic classes takes some thought, some patience, and some consensus. Osbourne talks at length about social programs that don't meet needs as much as make investments, arguing that government initiatives shouldn't consume money but rather produce results: training people, developing communities, and transitioning industries rather than propping them up.
Fundamentally, though, governments are led by politicians who are elected every two to six years. Large corporations, their usual partner in such efforts, are accountable to quarterly results. Large non-profits are too often poorly led and inefficiently run. Small businesses and non-profits have neither the scale nor the sway to make a dent on a macro-economic level. Who's left who can lobby for a BOTH-AND approach to economic growth and the equitable distribution of its fruits?
There is no one savior here, although universities (because of their relative longevity in and commitment to specific neighborhoods and regions) and churches (because of their concern for the poor and their eternal/Kingdom perspective on life) obviously come to mind. Rather, it will take a subset of each of the aforementioned groups who can see past the limitations of their respective agendas and constraints and advocate for the kind of long-range and far-sighted actions that will work our economy towards robust growth and the inclusion of the poorest and most marginalized among us in its benefits.
And too often, we do this because we are stuck on our political agendas. The left is loath to put their trust in "trickle-down" economics, even though a rising tide does in fact lift all boats. The right is loath to put their trust in direct services to the poorest among us, even though a rising tide doesn't in fact lift all boats equally. And both the left and the right would have you believe that any gain by the rich must mean a loss by the poor, and vice versa.
And while that is often the case, it doesn't have to be. But to bring about economic growth AND a broad participation in it by all socio-economic classes takes some thought, some patience, and some consensus. Osbourne talks at length about social programs that don't meet needs as much as make investments, arguing that government initiatives shouldn't consume money but rather produce results: training people, developing communities, and transitioning industries rather than propping them up.
Fundamentally, though, governments are led by politicians who are elected every two to six years. Large corporations, their usual partner in such efforts, are accountable to quarterly results. Large non-profits are too often poorly led and inefficiently run. Small businesses and non-profits have neither the scale nor the sway to make a dent on a macro-economic level. Who's left who can lobby for a BOTH-AND approach to economic growth and the equitable distribution of its fruits?
There is no one savior here, although universities (because of their relative longevity in and commitment to specific neighborhoods and regions) and churches (because of their concern for the poor and their eternal/Kingdom perspective on life) obviously come to mind. Rather, it will take a subset of each of the aforementioned groups who can see past the limitations of their respective agendas and constraints and advocate for the kind of long-range and far-sighted actions that will work our economy towards robust growth and the inclusion of the poorest and most marginalized among us in its benefits.
Comments