standing up to big business

Peter Heslam's avatar
Posted by Peter Heslam Fri, 20/01/2006 - 5:57pm :: News and Current Affairs | People | more by Peter Heslam

Ever since Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power, the Conservative Party in the UK has been associated with the interests of big business.

Yet it looks, on the surface at least, as if all that’s about to change under the party’s new leader, David Cameron. As the media has widely reported, Cameron has pledged that a Conservative government would ‘stand up to big business’.

This statement raises a crucial question: What should be the relationship between government and business?

The Bible appears to suggest that distinctive ‘spheres’ within society - economic, military, religious, legal, domestic – should co-exist without being subsumed under an all-pervasive ‘state’. This is reflected, for instance, in the dire warnings about the exercise of political power over the economic sphere at the institution of the kingship (1 Samuel 8), and in the increasing separation of the priestly, prophetic and kingly roles.

These insights, together with the New Testament principle that political power has no authority over religious matters (Acts 4.19-20), have influenced a school of thought emanating most notably from the politician and theologian Abraham Kuyper, which maintains that the power of the state is to be strictly limited.

Whereas we tend to focus, today, on the dichotomy between state and market, this school argues instead that human culture is made up of a plethora of institutions, or ‘mediating structures’ - such as families, schools, hospitals, religious bodies, businesses, voluntary associations - each responsible, in its own way, for serving the common good but each enjoying relative autonomy and freedom from state control.

This kind of social philosophy lay in part behind Mrs Thatcher’s widely misinterpreted claim that ‘There is no such thing as society’ - a claim Cameron cunningly both dismissed and affirmed by observing,‘There is such a thing as society – it’s just not the same thing as the state’ (in the speech that’s widely credited as having won him the Tory leadership at the 2005 party conference).

But it’s now Cameron’s turn to get used to being misinterpreted. Despite the hullabaloo in the press, his statement about big business actually went like this: ‘We should not only stand up for big business but stand up to big business when it’s in the interests of Britain and the world.’

As long as he sticks to both halves of this pledge there is little cause for concern. But, if he gets to office, we must hold him to his words.

Peter Heslam

Peter Heslam is a senior research associate of LICC, and director of Transforming Business, Cambridge University

additional resources

Peter Heslam's Transforming Business website is at www.transformingbusiness.net.

The most decisive and influential critique of big business remains Naomi Klein's best-seller No Logo. Cameron may be among the millions who have read it. Its subtitle is 'Taking aim at the brand bullies'. The No Logo website can be found at www.nologo.org.

For an article attacking Christian Aid's opposition to free trade, written in the wake of Cameron's criticism of Christian Aid, see www.globalisationinstitute.org.

An exposition of Abraham Kuyper's socio-political philosophy, often refered to as 'sphere-sovereignty', is contained in Peter Heslam's book on Kuyper - Creating a Christian Worldview (Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1998) - or his article 'Prophet of the Third Way: The Shape of Kuyper's Socio-Political Vision', in Markets and Morality, available here - www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2002_spring/heslam.html.

For an attempt to apply 'sphere-sovereignty' to modern economic institutions, see an article by Ray Pennings of the Work Research Foundation - at http://wrf.ca/comment/article.cfm?ID=35.

Excellent discussions of political theory from a Christian perspective informed by Kuyper's insights can be found in Political Theory and Christian Vision, edited by Jonathan Chaplin and Paul Marshall (University Press of America, 1994).

David Cameron's speech at the 2005 Conservative Party Conference can be found at www.conservatives.com. His most recent speech on poverty and social justice can be found here too.

For Margaret Thatcher's later reflections on her 'There is no such thing as society' statement, see her memoirs - The Downing Street Years (HarperCollins, 1993), p. 626.

Thatcher and society
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 20/01/2006 - 4:57pm.
I do enjoy the regular bulletins on various topics and Peter Heslam's piece certainly made me sit up and respond.

It is always unwise to quote Mrs Thatcher in any positive philosophical light. She didn't have the depth of understanding to make the case that Peter Heslam has outlined so clearly, and indeed neither has any leading politician in the last 30 years.

She was not misunderstood when she said 'There is no such thing as society'. She didn't understand that there is a general social obligation to assist the weak and disadvantaged, so poverty exploded in extent under her tenure.

The Tories abandoned responsibility; they called it strength but it was cowardice and macho posturing. It's always the case when governments say it's courageous to cut spending. The upper class (and the fellow travellers who join it) have always grabbed the spoils but been keen to shed responsibility if they can get away with it.

Mrs Thatcher blighted the early adulthood of many of us with her pompous and patronising smugness and the hypocrisy of her "faith". To be unemployed at that time (as I briefly was) was to experience the malice and glee with which she, Tebbit and Ridley took great joy in abolishing jobs. 'You are unemployed and its your fault' basically.

The description of the miners as 'the enemy within' was unforgivable; a miner has more courage in his little finger than she had in her whole cabinet. Revenge was exacted against the miners, so we still have wrecked communities 20 years on thanks to her.

She fulfilled the caricature when she presented herself as "a typical housewife", displaying ignorance and narrow-minded xenophobia about foreign affairs and what day-to-day life was like for many people. Her only achievements ironically were in foreign policy - the Zimbabwe peace accord and the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The evangelical church was taken in by the presence around her of good Christian men like Michael Allison. I do get thoroughly sick of this assumption in the church and liberal media that to be a Christian you have an ultra-conservative. You would think that te Methodists had nothing to do with the Labour party or that Churchill was a Christian while Gladstone was not.

Tom Mills
It is a pity that these issue
Posted by  Anonymous on Mon, 30/01/2006 - 11:06am.
It is a pity that these issues cannot be discussed in a charitable manner instead of mis-ascribing motives and misplacing context. Mrs Thatcher did not suggest that there was no general obligation to the poor. She simply said that an abstraction, "society", could not finance that obligation - it had to be financed, ulimately, by individuals and families. She was attacking the lament, "society will pay for it", responding that this means that "other individuals and families will pay for it". Many such individuals and families who pay tax may themseleves be poor - indeed poorer than the families their taxes support (an individual on £4,600 has a marginal tax rate of over 40% and a marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rate combined of between 80% and 100% depending on circumstances). That is the simple point she was making - and Gladstone, who oversaw taxes at one quarter the level of Thatcher, would have agreed.

On the unemployment issues, memories are short. Unemployment was a terrible blight. Thatcher, Ridley and Tebbit would all have understood that. However, the level of inflation and problems in the nationalised industries were such that if action had not been taken the UK would have ended up closer to the position of Argentina (though not quite as bad as Zimbabwe which I would hardly regard as a Thatcher success story). Difficult decisions had to be taken. How much easier it would have been for her to court popularity.

On the specific issue of big business and the Conservative party. I think that Peter Heslam's piece was correct in all but the first sentence. The corporatist (and often pro-regulation and protectionist) attitudes of big business came into conflict with Mrs. Thatcher far more than with previous Conservative governments. She was welcome amongst the self emnployed and small businesses rather than in the boardrooms. It is unclear what Cameron means but he may well be stating explicitly something that was implicit in Mrs. Thatcher's policy - pro business does not mean regulation and protectionism to protect big business at the expense of small business and the consumer.

Anon
Thatcher and Society
Posted by  srstrachanjr on Sat, 25/02/2006 - 11:00pm.
I am making this post with the disclaimer that I know little of Thatcher's policy or administration, nevertheless I believe there are some presuppositions within Mr. Mills' argument that warrant a response.

Mr. Mills seems to imply that Margaret Thatcher was guilty of a complete disregard for the poor and poverty issues. This in fact may be true. However, what is telling is the implied belief that such a duty should be handled by the state.

What if this is not the case? Very few seem to question this modernist presupposition, but clearly there is room to do so. The state has largely failed to achieve any success in eradicating poverty, from domestic programs like the welfare system to international goofs in the IMF and World Bank.

Kuyperian political philosophy makes a strong argument that the state should be limited in its tasks, and when it overextends itself, failure will ensue. Examples of this abound in the United States. I would venture to say the same is probably true in the U.K as well.

We also must recognize the fact that the rise of socialist democracy has also led to the decline of civil society, whose mediating institutions are better equipped to deal with the social needs of a given community.

Stuart Strachan Jr.
M.Div Junior
Princeton Theologial Seminary
Thatcher and society
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 25/01/2006 - 10:04am.
Thanks for your helpful LICC piece on Thatcher/Cameron. I can see that Thatcher could claim to have been misinterpreted but I'm not sure that it would be for the reasons you say. Her views hardly had room for the robust Kuyperian approach you seem to be advocating. I always thought her views had to be understood in terms of a radical individualism that denies the social as a category.

Grace and peace,
David Lyon
Kuyper and Individualism
Posted by  Anonymous on Mon, 30/01/2006 - 4:00pm.
It seems as though a Kuyperian approach does, in fact, presuppose a sort of solidarity (there may be something behind his formation of the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP)). More importantly, however, there seems to be a "dialectic" between the individual and the collective in Kuyper's social theory. Therefore, David Cameron's statement could more effectively be saying that Thatcher only got one side of "culture," thus completely missing the point (from a Kuyperian perspective). Furthermore, Cameron's dialectic between "society" and "state," or more particularly, between the "interest of business" and the "common interest," suggests a healthy Kuyperian social ethic.

Jonathan Teubner
the sphere of government
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 31/01/2006 - 9:42pm.
I think the problem here is as much with the leadership of business as it is with government. In a Kuyperian society, government has to live with the limitations and boundaries, as well as the obligations and duties, of its role. So does business. For business institutions to meddle in the sphere of government is just as problematical as government overstepping the sphere of business. In some of his recent speaking and writing, Robert Reich has rather persuasively made the case that the most important social responsibility of business is to stay out of politics. I hope Mr. Cameron's idea of "the interests of Britain and the world" goes beyond the interests of the wealthy elite.

John Tiemstra
Mrs T and society
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 01/02/2006 - 11:39am.
Why do people have to speak so uncharitably about politicians, misinterpreting their motives? Mrs T said that there was no such thing society specifically in the context that an abstraction (society) cannot pay for redistribution - only specific individuals and families can. It did not mean that she did not believe in helping the poor or feel concern for them. But "society" cannot pay for that obligation, only individuals and families who might well be poor themselves.

Big business actually had a pretty rocky relationship with Thatcher. Big business is normally corporatist, pro regulation and protectionist. The CBI has generally been broadly "Heathite". Mrs Thatcher was much more comfortable with small business. If Cameron means that he is going to reject protectionist and pro-regulation overtures from big business, then it is business as usual so to speak!

Prof Philip Booth, Institute for Economic Affairs
Thanks
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 01/02/2006 - 11:44am.
Thanks Peter for this very compelling observation. I'm teaching the first course on Kuyper ever offered at Princeton and I'm circulating your reflection to the 20 students who've enrolled.

Prof Max Stackhouse, Princeton Theological Seminary
Nice work
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 01/02/2006 - 11:44am.
Thanks for this. Nice piece, with which I agree.

Prof Jonathan Chaplin, Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto
Peter Heslam raises an intere
Posted by  Firefly on Wed, 05/04/2006 - 10:55am.
Peter Heslam raises an interesting question regarding the role the extent to which the state should have authority over big business, from a christian perspective. He doesn't question the obligations that christians have to the poor but questions whether these obligations extend to the government. Indeed he suggests that business should be seen as a separate sphere and therefore have less influence over business. This position is defensible if one accepts that the government shouldn't have influence over any moral issues. Indeed the Bible is more explicit in denouncing the injustice of inequlaity in wealth than it is in denouncing abortion. I'm not saying that abortion is OK, I'm just pointing out that economic inequality seems to be an issue even closer to God's heart. I would raise a question if we believe the state has authority and we believe that economic inequlaity can lead to unfairness why should the state not play a role in achieving social justice? Isaiah 26 v 5-6 states that 'He will bring that high city down to the ground and throw it down into the dust. then those who were hurt by the city will walk on its ruins; those who were made poor by the city will trample it under their feet'; ultimately politics involves power relationships, given the inequality in power that money brings should the state not have a role in regulating this relationship? Amos 5 v 11 talks about this power inequality 'you walk on poor people forcing them to give you grain...you keep the poor from getting justice in court'. Who can ensure that the poor get justice in court more than the state can? Is the court not a sphere of government?

Of course the power of the state should be limited, as God gives us discretion so the state should allow business discretion but the state should intervene when it discerns that economic inequlaity is leading to injustice. I have to admit that western countries today remind me of the king of Tyre which causes me deep concern. The pharisees thought they were safe because they gave a tenth of what they earned but Jesus told them they had ignored 'justice and kindness' (Matthew 23).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from
www.licc.org.uk/culture.