Madam, - It is unfortunate that Dr Norman Stewart (January 15th) felt obliged to resort to caricature and ridicule in attempting to challenge my views on the neo-liberal agenda. It seems that, like many other self proclaimed liberals, Dr Stewart supports competition in all realms but that of ideas.
I would like to correct him on a number of points. Firstly, I did not present the "management of the socio-economic system as a choice between state control and rampant individualism". I did, however, attempt to contrast the respective philosophies underpinning services provided by the state and those provided by the private sector. I argued that the provision of essential public services such as health, education and culture should remain the preserve of the state. I also pointed out that the status of "citizen" provides a much stronger protection for the individual's fundamental rights than that of "consumer", as the latter depends on the ability to pay for a given service.
Secondly, I have to take issue with his use of the example of Gerhard Schroeder's failure to fulfil the pledge he made six years ago to reduce unemployment in Germany as proof that "governments' ability to understand and control the socio-economic system is extremely limited". I would argue that societies in which neo-liberal economic policies are firmly entrenched (e.g. the US) are subject to periodic recessions and "boom and bust" cycles. This suggests that free market prescriptions are no more successful in guaranteeing sustained economic growth or stability than are more interventionist governments.
In fact, one can point to a number of European models of mature and successful economies managed by governments that have not embraced neo-liberalism, including Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland.
My greatest difficulty with the neo-liberal agenda is the way in which it is being implemented by governments without any real public debate or discussion. It is almost as though since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it the effective collapse of Communism and Socialism, there has been no real competition for capitalism. This appears to have allowed a relatively new and very virulent form of "free-market" or "neo-liberal" capitalism to be promoted globally without any real opposition.
The ongoing debate over "Boston versus Berlin" is a recognition that the evolving European Union has very important choices to make about which model of economic management it wishes to embrace in the future. The launch of a new draft EU constitution has provided a welcome opportunity for such a debate to emerge. Your paper is to be congratulated on providing a critical forum for this debate. - Yours, etc.,
Cllr DEIRDRE DE BURCA, Eglinton Road, Bray, Co Wicklow.