As a tiny, resource-rich nation New Zealand should be right up there with Singapore and the Nordic nations as one of the planet’s cleanest, safest and richest nations (per capita income). We have never been so far from that ideal.
Firstly, the massive divergence between where we are and where we could be comes down to an increasingly undisciplined, multicultural population lacking any sense of national purpose or common interest except, perhaps, in sport. Hence, increasing anti-social behaviour and escalating crime cancels out quality of life and imposes extreme financial cost on our country.
The massive divergence between where we are and where we could be comes down to an increasingly undisciplined, multicultural population lacking any sense of national purpose or common interest except, perhaps, in sport.
Secondly, New Zealanders want all the trappings of economic success such as world-class healthcare, education, social security and more but fail to accept we simply don’t command the high national income (relative to population) to afford all we want.
Unlike the tiny, high-income nations which have immense productive sectors, we remain a low-income, agricultural export nation.
But the country’s economic decline and societal disintegration are not irreversible.
The question is whether the political will exists to implement prescriptions proved successful in nation after nation, including our own in the past.
Eighty years ago, the NZ Government, haunted by the Great Depression, established the Organisation for National Development (1944) tasked with raising national living standards. It concluded:
“It is now more clearly recognised that nations which can organise the whole of their human and material resources in the service of the war effort must similarly organise their capacity for the task of raising living standards.
“Provided the goal is clearly seen by all and a high enough priority is attached to its attainment to enable all hindrances to be thrust aside or overcome – provided, that is, that the whole resources of private enterprise, banking and otherwise, as well as all state enterprise, are directed positively towards the achievement of full employment of human and material resources – then there is no basic reason why full advantage should not be taken of the resulting high productivity of industry for the betterment of human conditions instead of for their destruction.”
That paragraph is still relevant because it broadly sets out a plausible axis of advance to achieve rich-nation status. The basic principles, which drive success on the sports and battle fields, also apply to economic development.
Unlike the tiny, high-income nations which have immense productive sectors, we remain a low-income, agricultural export nation.
That is, setting a defined goal (e.g. achieving rich-nation status by 2050) then with sustained, unrelenting effort mobilising all available resources towards achieving that goal.
However, experience shows economic development requires certain conditions to succeed including to be clearly seen and accepted across the political spectrum and by the whole population. Development will surely succeed when raising national living standards is an overriding national priority – rather than a preference – free of all threat of political or ideological disruption.
It seems New Zealand lacks the required development institutions, particularly a national development bank and an independent economic development agency, to ensure an implemented development strategy and one which isn’t derailed by an incoming government.
Development calls for a high level of trust by citizens in both their government and their fellow citizens. Economic development also requires high social cohesion; the belief we are all in this endeavour and, if it succeeds, the new national wealth will be shared by 99%, not hogged by 1%.
We have long heard there will always be recovery, green shoots emerging, positive signs, sound economic fundamentals and good times ahead but we must accept that unless we change direction, as outlined back in 1944, then what we have now is as good as it gets. Period.
John H. Gascoigne, Karapiro
