Political and economic change in the UK has occurred gradually throughout the history of Britain. Does the same theory apply to political and economic policy today?
Positive gradualism has been rampant in Britain’s earlier career. Even still, the country is for the most part in good shape economically, as GDP is higher than in France or Germany, inflation has been low, quality of life has been good, the labor market is more plural, and globalization has increased competition. However, Britain doesn’t have the assets it once did. It was the first country to industrialize and its economy faltered in the 70’s and 80’s. Britain has changed, that’s a given. But it appears to be suffering a punctuated equilibrium rather than a constancy of the theory of gradualism to the extent it once illustrated. This is not to say that Britain is experiencing little or no gradualism. As applied in this instance, punctuated equilibrium is not the polar opposite of gradualism but rather a form of gradualism—relative to Britain’s past and “evolution” or changing national identity, change is still occurring but by comparison from the 70’s and 80’s, to its current standing there has been a lacking in this aggregation and it has slowed significantly: it has diverted from previous formalities, it has become an institution of change at certain points only in given sectors of private life for its citizens, and created a more limited degree for change on the higher levels of government that remain at the brunt of its ability for modern fine-tuning or adjustments (i.e. House of Lords: from affectations of noblesse oblige, peerage and inherited seats, to the current prospect of “running for office” via elections. Say hello to efficacy and therein, an opportunity for more real change).
The state appears to be reaching peaks of success, however, this does not extend completely to the nation itself. Productivity has traditionally lagged, but some service areas, such as healthcare and education (i.e. secondary schools—universities) are the victims of under-funding. This proves that Britain’s foundation is struggling. Education has been an issue for Britain because it has caused confusion by means of what a fluid education consists of, and this contributes to these workers’ skills: they are those who have become “educated”, now join or have joined the private sector, and ultimately whose skills constitute the general well-being of the state. Services are what make a nation; how enfranchised the citizens of a nation/state are speaks to their desires (think economics i.e. incentives and information) to think or build infrastructure, etc.
It’s nothing new, this existence of globalization and its effects, but it is disconcerting that this is one of the primary forces shaping the economy, and yet modern life cannot be “controlled” by those with power. Does this embody some personification of the act of integration and interdependence as an uncontrollable “thing”? Britain has improved in globalization more than most European competitors. But, it has been trading in most of its past glories and educational success. Business ventures and assets are strewn overseas by external factors, other countries, buying out British companies. The economy is strained because taxes are increasing and debts are high. Red tape has become an issue. Of course those in power would rather sweep technicalities under the rug—for name’s sake bureaucracy. They’re part to blame. Aren’t they in charge and yet stability can’t be completely guaranteed? A vote of confidence is in order. However, No one person makes a better judge of character, since the State is not head by one man alone.
There exists a fall line—it cries out for the need of an increased role for the state, and to set targets for skilled workers. It needs new guiding principles for what’s effective. Globalization creates alienation of state sovereignty and it makes sense that this is one of the root causes of Britain’s manageable problems. There’s increased outside pressure, and crime and terrorism have no longer become a problem constrained to state boundaries. Because of this, an out source is brain drain, migration, some questions for the national identity, and devolution.
Pluralism is the basis of Britain’s government on both ends of the spectrum for parliament and all who are affected by policies made. It’s important to have an optimistic leader(s) that effect policy with aspirations and a sensibility that it’s going to make a positive impact. There needs to be this hope, otherwise what grounds for change exist? Such an example is with the new elections on the rise. Blair is a nice face and shares fructose covered words and is well-known, but Brown is not such a man. He lacks the charismatic aura, like Blair or Cameron, however he understands “the nature of institutions” and has an interest in the “British identity”. With change and lessons learned, which history serves to teach, growth is possible and therein lay the craving for gradualism’s continuation. The hope for Britain and a new economic knowledge pushes for these improved mechanisms in the British country.
