Home > Plutonomy, The Economics Profession > The legitimacy of governments and of economic policies

The legitimacy of governments and of economic policies

from Grazia Ietto-Gillies

In the last few weeks there has been much concern and writing about legitimacy and democratic deficits in connection with the technocratic governments in Greece and Italy. The concern on the latter refers to the fact that the heads of these two governments and (all or most of) their ministers are not members of the respective elected parliaments. Nonetheless, the new governments and their programmes have been approved by the parliaments of the two countries.

The media concern about the democratic deficit is justified. However, it is a concern that should be extended far beyond the confines of the present governments of Greece and Italy.  I cannot see how the Berlusconi government can be considered to have had more legitimacy than the Monti government for two reasons. Berlusconi and his parliamentarians were elected on the back of a media controlled by Berlusconi and his family. To add to this problem, there has also been the stench of allegation by some opposition MPs about possible ‘money for votes’ in the Italian Parliament. Allegations denied by the parties involved. 

Lest readers come to the swift conclusion that the above imbroglios are a feature of ‘peripheral’ countries (Italy peripheral within the EU?  It was one of the founding members and it has some 16.7 % of the Euro area population and  16.9 % of  its GDP),  let us consider another EU country of which I have some knowledge: the UK.  The head of the UKg overnment – be it Labour or Conservative – does not own or control the media. However, Murdoch has set the agenda for policies – such as no membership of the EMU – for a few decades. Disobey Murdoch and his media will see that you lose elections. It is not too far-fetched to claim that in both countries most policies are dictated by control of the media. In one –Italy– the process and conflict of interest is clear and transparent. In the other, the UK, there is more the appearance of independence though the substance is not very dissimilar. Moreover, in the UK, many governments give ministerial responsibilities to members of the House of Lords which is an unelected Chamber. The control of policies does not take place only via the control by the media; money also speaks. Party donations and hope of lucrative positions for retired politicians or the top ranks of the civil service can also be a great inducement to steer policies in specific directions be they in the field of (de)regulation of the financial sector or taxation or the health service. The situation in the US is not much different except in the fact that both Chambers are elected and so an unelected minister would not be possible, as far as I know. 

So much for the legitimacy of governments. But where do economic policies gain their legitimacy from? Well, first at the political level, from the legitimacy of the government that puts them forward for approval to elected parliaments. Second, from the validity of the economics behind the proposed policies. Here come the role of the economics profession and its relationship with politics and the politicians. Economics is a subject where several paradigms co-exist. They lead to different analyses of the economy and different prescriptions. Clearly, in the end one prescription must prevail over the others in terms of final policies. However, the process leading to the final policies is key to their legitimacy. In order for those policies to have economic/scientific legitimacy it would be imperative for: (a) the economics profession as a whole to have confidence in the evaluation process of the theories and policy conclusions put forward; (b) for all or most of the main paradigms to be given the same chance of arguing their case; and (c) for economists belonging to different paradigms to be given the ear of ministers on an equal footing. These are among the reasons why the World Economics Association considers pluralism as one of its key commitments and why its journals will be run on the basis of an open and participatory evaluation process.

The austerity policies currently being implemented in many advanced countries have no legitimacy because: (i) the governments that put them forward and implement them lack proper democratic legitimacy. They are policies dictated by the interests of the people and groups that with their money, power and media influence control elections. In the case of the so-called ‘peripheral’ countries within Europe the democratic deficit is enhanced by the fact that the policies are imposed by faceless financial markets via the politician of ‘non-peripheral’ countries. The spectacle of Merkel and Sarkozy and their unelected EC top officials dishing out pages of detailed policy prescriptions to heads of governments of other European countries for implementation back home adds to the sense of serious failure of democracy within Europe. (ii) The policies proposed and being implemented are seen as highly controversial and, indeed, counterproductive within large sections of the economics community including some high profile ones – at least two “Nobel Prize” winners. Yet these voices find no listening ears at the political levels. 

Many are beginning to feel that the democratic deficit across many developed countries may be more significant and worrying than the economic deficit. The sense of hopelessness and the lack of trust in politicians, parties and political processes have so far manifested in low participation rates in elections and in the peaceful ‘Occupy the cities’ movement. As austerity further erodes the social and economic fabric of our society, for how much longer will the millions of young unemployed just sit in cities squares and wait peacefully? 

Grazia Ietto-Gillies

  1. Jon Cloke
    December 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    You over-egg the pudding re Murdoch and his power to lose or win elections. Several surveys done on the Sun/NoW indicate that they pay very little attention to the leaders of either paper and vote how they want – NI has been very successful at jumoing on a bandwagon and pretending it’s the driver. What Murdoch has also been successful at is in persuading the political ‘elites’ (never the most courageous bunch) that he does indeed have that power, and that more importantly he has power over them personally, which is thanks to exactly that corrupt arrangement with the UK government and the Metropolitan Police that the Leveson inquiry will eventually whitewash…

    • December 3, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      Methinks that this reply is not so different from what lettog was saying.

      • December 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm

        I agree: a distinction without a difference, in practical terms

      • December 4, 2011 at 2:36 pm

        The Sun is a comic and is largely read as such but the Daily Mail is another matter. It’s the latter and the Express which do most damage by setting the working class against one another: benefit scroungers, lazy workshy,..

  2. December 3, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Murdoch is a manipulative rascal. That pie-in-face episode recently was a total setup orchestrated by himself to gain sympathy in the face of a hostile inquiry.

  3. Podargus
    December 3, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Murdoch,Berlusconi etc etc ad nauseum – they are all members of the oligarchy which is a broad church with one common creed – greed.

    All oligarchies fail.Whether the one presiding over the disintegration of the EMU will go quietly is another question.

  4. Geoff Davies
    December 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    The media do have a big effect, but it’s not by writing editorials. It’s by controlling the whole “news” process so that undesired sections of society and opinion are disappeared or demonised while desired ones are spruiked. Murduch’s “The Australian” is a bullying propaganda rag, not a newspaper, and this is become more widely remarked lately, for example in Robert Manne’s Quarterly Essay “Bad News”

    However there’s also the money fed directly into politics. In the US and Australia, both of which I have lived in, the congress/parliament is largely owned by big money. They govern mainly for the 1%. Our governance systems are systemically corrupt.

    I give an Australian domestic perspective on this in a blog post:

  5. Bruce E. Woych
    December 5, 2011 at 12:54 am


    “In a stunning move that has civil libertarians stuttering with disbelief, the U.S. Senate has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Bill of Rights in America.”
    “The National Defense Authorization Act is being called the most traitorous act ever witnessed in the Senate, and the language of the bill is cleverly designed to make you think it doesn’t apply to Americans, but toward the end of the bill it essentially says it can apply to Americans ”if we want it to.” …..

    ”Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 – 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 | Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl [MI] (introduced 11/15/2011) | Related Bills: H.R.1540 | Latest Major Action: 12/1/2011 Passed/agreed to in Senate. | Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay. 93 – 7. | Record Vote Number: 218. | Latest Action: 12/1/2011 National Defense Authorization Act | Amendment details

    This bill, passed late last night in a 93-7 vote, declares the entire USA to be a ”battleground” upon which U.S. military forces can operate with impunity, overriding Posse Comitatus and granting the military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate and even assassinate U.S. citizens with impunity.”

    US Senate wants the entire USA to be a ”battleground”
    2 december, 2011 By Mike Adams 400 Comments


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: