The Illusion of Choice ?

Choice is the buzzword of everyone these days. We like choice. Choice is fundamental to capitalism. Every day we make decisions on an enormous number of things. In fact, we take choice so much for granted that we don’t even think about it when we make that “decision” between a Mars and a Snickers. Either way, it lines someone’s pocket somewhere.

So, then, it would not be alien to us to make choices in areas where choice is taboo. The public sector for instance. Starting with schools, then hospitals and ultimately which ambulance you’d prefer to be driven in because it has a lower accident rate and higher quality speed drivers.

The question is, do we really want that choice? And if so, will it achieve anything?

The government likes to claim that choice will help drive up standards. That’s a questionable assumption in the first place, but let’s run with it.

The public sector is not really a place where choice is compatible. We want things done as best we can, and as quickly as we can. Both of these may or may not involve too much of a consideration on cost, whereas the private sector ethos places great importance on the bottom line. An immediate incompatibility.

Say you are a parent. You have a choice of School A or School B for your 11-year-old child. School A is local, but not too good. School B is 10 miles away, but it is very good. You want to get your child into School B, and you, by some miracle, manage to achieve it. In the meantime, many other parents fail, and are forced into School A. Good schools for the few, not the many.

But let’s assume that Labour is right. The choice ethic makes School A work harder. School A sacks its headmaster, and drafts in a whole new management team. Over 5 years, they turn the school around. School A’s grades (which, incidentally, are measured by a school grading system no one trusts, but everyone hails the God Of League Tables anyway) improve enough that they are now on a par with School B.

The system is then equalled out. Choice has “driven up standards”.

But then what happens to choice? If School A and School B are the same now, why does it matter any more which one you choose? Why not go back to School A because it’s closer?

In this manner, why have choice in the first place? The theory is wonderful (there is no guarantee that School A would turn itself around: the problems may be sociological which the school cannot control), but in the end, the public sector has produced two largely undifferentiated institutions, both equally good. Choice is no longer necessary. The short-term choice has eliminated choice in the long term.

Contrast with the private sector. Marketing speaks of the 4 P’s: Product, Price, Place and Promotion. That decision between Mars and Snickers is on product: nutty Snickers or smooth Mars? How about a decision between Tesco and ASDA? Price virtually the same. Virtually the same range of products on offer. No difference in place. But promotion? Ahh – some differentiation is finally achieved: a psychological distinction between whether you prefer the fact that “every little helps” or you enjoy tinkling the back pocket to hear that satisfying jingle of loose change.

In short, private sector choice works because there is so much that you can differentiate on.

But in the public sector… if choice equalises standards, then choice is no longer needed. If the argument then were stretched to say public schools should compete for students on more than just chances of success and general school atmosphere, then I would argue that we are entering dangerous territory. If the product is the same and the price is the same, only place and promotion are left. I don’t want schools advertising for pupils by creating “brand images”; this only prays on a mentality I don’t want to see in education. This leaves only place… and suddenly we come back to where we started.

In an ideal world, most people would prefer the local school and hospital to be top notch. No one, in these circumstances, really wants to make a choice between which school and hospital you should go to. They could, should and can all be good. If Labour’s argument that choice will achieve that is borne out, then choice will eliminate itself from the equation, and we’ll be back to square one – you go to the local school or hospital because they are just that: local.

This is a vast oversimplification of the concept – there are hundreds of factors at play in society that are at the heart of the public sector reform issue that do not figure in discussions about private sector success – but it is the key principle upon which Labour’s reforms are being built. I believe choice may have some role to play initially, but it is neither the end, nor the means to achieve it. It is simply a part of a much wider solution to improving the public services: one which involves considering everything from society in turn, and not one which assumes that a private sector ethos will work wonders in an area where its ideas are largely incompatible.