WITH APOLOGIES TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE!

COMMENTING on the recent exchange.

Like Dave Byrne I was rather reluctant to enter what looked a little
like a private spat between David Gordon and Ray Thomas but there do
seem to be some pretty fundamental elisions in David Gordon's argument;
and I suppose the latest exchange of e-mails about resource allocation
has implicated me somewhat.

Moreover, whilst I realise that a lot of static has crossed the ether
(doesn't sound quite as poetic as 'water under the bridge' - but perhaps
we can leave arguing about that for another day) since the original
e-mail fromDavid Gordon, I'm commenting on this e-mail rather than on
the various replies and counter-replies.  Whilst the later ones are
interesting provide a fascinating insight into the variety of
interpretations of the term planning among the active participants to
this list, they seem to me to have rather drifted off the main point -
which is about the proposed Statement of Aims - and the contrast between
'planning' (somewhow David has omitted the crucial qualifier
'progressive' which is in the proposed Statement of Aims - and is
certainly what irritiated me and I think a few others) and the
'market'/'profit'.

Like David Gordon, I think I should declare an interest - in fact two
(although I get the feeling that the declarations are being used in
direct contradistinction to the Parliamentary device of puting up a
warning flag that whatsomeone is about to say is because of their
position and so has to be discounted; instead - at least in David
Gordon's message, more as a claim to authority).  

My first interest, raised already, is because I spend about a 1/4 of my
work time on devising resoure allocation formulae for various government
departments in the UK and - to a limited extent - elsewhere.  I agree
entirely, in principle, with David Gordon that articulation of socal
policy goals should be prior to the development of any resource
allocatton formulae.  However, his description of how resource
allocation happens in health is such a parody of what actually happens -
not what ought to happen - that I think it has to be corrected.  

Sure, the Thatcherite Health of the Nation and the various New Labour
copies have set a series of Health Targets to which the health services
should aspire (probably through creative accounting we all know and
love).  But, except for special programmes, these are NOT used as the
basis for deciding HOW MUCH should be appportioned to primary care,
ambulances and hospitals.  For a start, spending on primary care is
driven by the numbers of GPs, the numbers of prescriptions and various
items for services so it is open-ended (and CANNOT be planned in
advance).  Even between cash-limited services (e.g. ambulances,
hospitals) the notional amounts at the national level - that provide the
weights for the various different resource allocation formulae - are
some more or less arbitrary funciton of last year's proportions.  This
is not because bureaucrats are incompetent of haven't learnt how to
'plan': simply that we don't know the comparative cost-effectiveness of
different health service interventions IN GENERAL (of course, we know
for some specific interventions)so there is no good 'evidence-base' (I
know they are attempting to do that through directing resources towards
areas with highest levels of treatable conditions amongst the poor; but
they haven't produced anything yet).

Equally, whilst I agree with David that the formulaic allocation of
resources should be less important than deciding upon how those
resources should be used (and finding out whether they are in fact used
that way and to what effect), it certainly doesn't feel like that when
everyone is arguing over the precise specification of the formula.  I
suspect that is linked to the lack of comprehensive knowledge of
cost-effectiveness referred to above, so that each particular Health
Authority believes - perhaps rather simplistically - that 'more is
better' however it is spent. 

But I wouldn't want to quarrel with the staement that someone has to
plan how to spend the £400million or so a year that each Health
Authority gets annually.  I'm less sangiune about the extent to which
such plans are implemented and audited - but that's another story.

The second interest which I should declare is that much of the remainder
of my work activities are spent in advising on social planning - mostly
in the fields of education and health in some of the poorest countries
in the world.  For a start, I would fear for my life if I used the term
'progressive' in many of these countries because many of them suffered
under what had previously were or pretended to be Marxist Leninist
regimes and would rather not hear any more of that thank you very much.

Leaving that aside - David would presumeably say that he can't help it
if there are distortions - the point is the presumption that the only
kind of saviour from the 'market' is planning based on high quality
statistical information.  I'd be lost vis-a-vis IMF etc. if I took that
attitude in many of the countries I work in: even guessing the size of
the population is an arcane coffee table art.  

Yet, polices are formulated, plans are made; and what differentiates
those that appear to work from those that don't is the extent to which
everyone is on board.  I know that David in a later reply says
'Community participation and consultation are usually key to effective
social planning.' but one has the awful feeling that he and some others
see a very clear limit to the extent of that process of consultation: it
might, after all, produce the 'wrong' answer.  

The crunch point is that there is - as David knows full-well - a huge
difference between top-down and bottom-up planning: and the use of the
term 'progressive' is inextricably linked with the former 'top-down'
planning.  Let's get rid of it. 

I've been having an off-list exchange where my co-respondent (is that
the right term?) says s/he can't see anything different between the
proposal and what is ion the inside front cover of the Newsletter. The
exchabnge ended - at least from my side - wuth the statement that

"I repeat - you may not think it is a change: I - and several others do.
At it's simplest, 'radical' (whatever that means) statistics is NOT only
about planning (progressive or otherwise) or about providing data for
the
hoi-poloi out there: it's also about querying what can and what cannot
be
counted, and what the attempt at counting does (including sorting people
into 'ethnic' groups); also about debating the role of numerical
information in a particiaptory democracy; and so on." 

All these issues - which are covered by the bullet points on the inside
front cover - are left out of the proposed statement, in favour of
harnessing (radical) statistics to a particular form of planning which I
find rather objectionable.

And the contrast with a reified 'market' is simplistic: there are all
kinds of exchange economies - including in the UK - which operate
perfectly satisfactorily on a 'market' principle: the issue is the
distribution of market power.

"Dave Gordon, School for Policy Studies" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:30:03 -0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> > Can you find some way of putting forward your points on the list?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
> 
> In Defence of Social Planning
> 
> The current edition of Radical Statistics contains an article by Ray
> Thomas about a preface written by Alison Macfarlane and myself for two
> recent published collections of Radical Statistics articles
> ('Statistics in Society', Dorling & Simpson, Arnold: 'Tackling
> Inequalities', Pantazis & Gordon, Policy Press).  This preface formed
> the basis of the Radical Statistics statement of aims that is to be
> debated at the AGM.  Most of the preface and statement of aims is
> uncontentious being based on similar statements that have appeared
> since 1975.  However, the concept of 'planning' and the statement that
> 'the needs of the community can never be fully met by competition' are
> not acceptable to Ray Thomas.
> 
> Similar comments have also appeared on the e-mail discussion list and
> in particular the concept of planning in general and social planning
> in particular has been described as 'Stalinist', 'Communist',
> 'Authoritarian', 'Elitist', 'Old fashioned', 'Anti-democratic',
> nothing to do with statistics, etc, etc
> 
> Before defending 'planning' I must declare a professional interest.
> I have worked for many years in a Department of Social Policy and
> Social Planning at the University of Bristol; and like my hundreds of
> colleagues in similar Departments at over 50 Universities in the UK, I
> have recently been busy polishing our RAE submission for the ESRC.  I
> had not previously realised that all these Universities were viewed as
> harbouring 'communist' organisations full of 'authoritarian' academic
> staff and I would like to thank Ray Thomas and other for this new
> insight.
> 
> PLANNING
> The government interviews about 350,000 households per year for a
> range of social surveys in order to inform policy and social planning.
> Social planning is one of the major users of both social and
> administrative statistics in the fields of health, housing, education,
> transport, criminal justice, child protection, care in the community,
> etc. etc.  The development and monitoring of policy and the planning
> for social change is dependent on high quality statistical
> information.  Evidence based policy and planning are major themes in
> every Social and Public Policy department in Universities and in all
> sections of government.  The people working in this field do not think
> of themselves as elitist, authoritarian or anti-democratic.
> 
> Ray Thomas has argued that social planning is little more than a
> minor adjunct to resource allocation.  This is untrue, resource
> allocation is a small part of social planning.  For example, in
> health, social planning usually first involves the formulation of
> policy goals e.g. reducing cancer deaths and improving treatment.
> Then some sort of needs based budgeting procedure e.g. the quantum of
> resources need to be apportioned between programme areas such as
> mental health services and ambulance services, etc.  Then 'resource
> allocation' by area using 'objective' indicators of need that are used
> to distributed the resources.  More social planning is then required
> to determine how these resources should be spent most effectively to
> achieve the desired policy goals (targets).  This whole process
> inevitably involves the secondary analysis of both survey and
> administrative statistics and sometimes/often the collection of
> primary data.  The 'resource allocation' bit of this process is
> arguably the least important part as how the money is spent is often
> more important than where it goes.
> 
> THE PURSUIT OF PROFIT
> The only alternative to planning is to leave the 'decisions' to the
> market.  This was the agenda pursued in the past by Margaret Thatcher
> and currently by the US government, the World Bank, the IMF and the
> OECD.  I however believe that health, education, rail transport,
> policing, care in the community, social services, environmental
> protection, social housing and a wide range of other services should
> not be left to the vagaries of the market and the pursuit of profit.
> If they are not to be left to the market then there is no alternative
> to policy formulation and social planning by public bodies.  Ray
> thinks that these ideas are 'old fashioned' and should not be stated.
> 
> These issues are to be debated and democratically decided upon at the
> Radical Statistics AGM at the London School of Economics (LSE) on the
> 24th February.  No venue could be more appropriate than the LSE where
> 50 years ago Richard Titmus laid the foundations for academic research
> into social planning as the foundation of a comprehensive welfare
> state from the 'cradle to the grave'.  As the proposer of the
> statement of aims I cannot hope to emulate Richard Titmus's eloquence
> and brilliance, I will however, be delighted to defend his legacy from
> Ray Thomas's more 'Thatcherite' agenda.  The idea of a comprehensive
> welfare state may be 'old fashioned' but it is infinitely more
> preferable than the social safety net and residualised welfare states
> being pursued by the 'Washington' consensus.  With welfare services
> being delivered by the private sector, churches and charities.
> 
> Radical statistics needs to decide if it is going to remain true to
> its traditions of politically opposing these kinds of 'modern'
> developments or if it is going to become just like any other
> 'academic' organisation and descend into apolitical discussion of
> statistical methodology and presentation.
> 
> ----------------------
> Dave Gordon
> Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
> University of Bristol
> 8 Priory Road
> Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK
> 
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: (44)-(117)-954 6761
> Fax: (44)-(117)-954 6756
> 
> ******************************************************
> Please think before you press the 'Reply' button!   Note that if you press
> the 'Reply' button your message will go the individual who posted this message
> not to the list.  With many mailers you will have a 'Reply-to-All' button that
> will send automatically to the list address of <[log in to unmask]>.  The
> Radstats list is set up for public discussion so please be generous with your
> thoughts and share them us all.
> *******************************************************