Evening Post THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1941. STATE IN BUSINESS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 111, 6 November 1941, Page 8

Evening Post THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1941. STATE IN BUSINESS

During the war Governments j throughout the world have assumed j more and more control of industry. This has been necessary, as the war itself has put an end to all normal conditions of trade. It is essential that the emergency should be met, and that the resources of the warring nations should be marshalled to meet war requirements. This can be done best by centralised direction and control. Producers ' and industrialists have understood this and accepted control. But they are not ready to accept similar dictation when the emergency period ends. They perceive that, while centralised control and State direction of manufacture and production are necessary to meet the extraordinary conditions of war, they are costly to industry. They put all power in the hands of the few, but they stifle the initiative of the many. The progress of the last century has not been achieved in that way. It is not the work of dictators in industry, but the achievement of countless producers, manufacturers, managers, and workers, all making their contribution in ideas and service. Is this contribution to be rejected after the war in order to maintain a system of State bureaucratic control? That is the question asked by Mr. Gordon Fraser in his presidential address to the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It is a vital question for New Zealand' The Dominion, under a Labour Government, was well on the road to State control before the war began. War necessity has accelerated the pace in the same direction and immensely extended the area of control. Now it is difficult to find any business activity that is not subject to some form of regulation. Today, said Mr. Fraser, the civil servant : not only orders when and where and if we are to buy our goods, when and at what price they are to be sold, but now he has assumed the absolute right to say whether the position of a debtor warrants further credit, being given and whether that debtor may give security for debts already incurred. It will be answered, of course, that this control of credit was instituted in order that the producer or manufacturer might not be' hampered through inability to obtain financial accommodation through the usual channels. But we have seen powers originally taken for a special purpose gradually acquire a general application. What is to hinder credit arrangements following the same" course? Is it desirable that this should be so, not only in the emergency of wartime, but when we must resume production for peace? There are two points of view. One opinion is that the welfare of the community is best promoted by all working to a plan in which the few are directors and the- mass obey orders. This leads inevitably to a bureaucracy with authority to issue instructions. Mr. Fraser held strongly that this did not promote the most efficient order. By its very training and the circumstances of its work the Public Service tends to become cautious and conservative, always- playing for safety and drifting towards the green slime of a stagnant backwater. Experience has shown that you cannot run industries successfully from Government offices. You cannot get things done. Real leadership is squashed under a mountain of red tape. There is little incentive for virile achievement. Must we not organise our business and our Government not for stability but for continuous and deliberate change? Mr. Fraser submitted that the soldiers on their return would not accept such an order. Having been under rigid discipline for years, they would wish to have freedom and scope for their own initiative, and enterprise. The course-of events after the last war certainly supports that view. The rush of men to the land was,due in great measure to the desire for work in which they would be their own masters. > People who hold views opposed to State control and regulation of everything are ready to admit, however, that complete reversion to the prewar order cannot be expected. Nor would it be advisable, Mr. Fraser suggested, that a midway course could be found in the adoption of the precepts and practices of the guild system. . The trades and industries should have authority for selfcontrol,, with no State intervention so long as they kept in line with general Government policy and the national interest. There is reason in this suggestion, but there may also be danger. Too much power cannot be given to a section of industry to direct or discipline its own members, or the -power may be used against the interest' of the general com-1 munity. We cannot grant licences to any industry to fence itself about, shut out competition, .and then fix the price and quality of its own services to the public. But within reason decentralised control may well be preferable to regulation by a bureaucracy. It would probably be quicker and better informed. Possibly the solution may lie in a combination of all methods —the State, the guild or industry, and the individual all having their respective spheres. But whatever the system, its results will be decided in great: measure by the spirit in which it is operated. The true spirit for a democratic people should be to afford the individual the greatest freedom and the greatest scope for enterprise that is compatible with the public welfare. State or sectional control should not be a first step to be taken wherever possible, but a last resort when it is undeniably called for.