Economy Is Not Separate From

Economy Is Not Separate From the Rest of Society

The article clearly shows that the economy cannot be considered as a different part from society, the main argument for this being the fact that there are too many shareholders of economic issues that are part of society. In this article, the discussion revolves around the role and power of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a regulatory body for the construction industry.

On one hand, the Australian government, represented by Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard, wants to reduce the framework in which the commission can operate and minimize the role it can play on the market by limiting its capacity of using various on workers and employers to make them provide information. In fact, Julia Gillard is a representative of the liberalist current in neoclassical economy. For the minister, the market should be able to regulate itself, through the interaction between supply and demand.

She also proposes a limitation of the powers of the commission because, in her opinion, an exacerbated role for this regulatory body will only limit the capacity of the economic entities in the industry to reach their primary objective from the point-of-view of the neoclassical economy, that of maximizing their profits.

At the same time, the work relations minister was defending the interests of the employees: as a minister of the Labor party, her main base of voters is represented by the middle class employees, as well as workers in factories, construction etc. A commission that does not possess the powers to force an employee to provide information could mean that the rights of the respective employee are better defended.

On the other hand, the Senate defends the role of the commission as a regulatory body of the industry. In its opinion, there should be no constraints in terms of the capacity of the regulator to conduct its inquiries and use all available instruments to obtain the information it needs in conducting its investigations. For the Senate, an active and capable regulatory body will help prevent chaos in the industry by seeing that the regulations are respected and imposed.

The relationship between economy and society of which it is a part of goes beyond this brief analysis. The two important shareholders of this case should be considered: the employers and the unions, as representatives of the workers. As seen in one of the paragraphs of the article, representatives of these two categories of shareholders were due to meet in order to discuss potential changes to the legislation governing the economic and social aspects of the construction industry.

This can be considered a variation on the invisible hand managing economic process, as Adam Smith had proposed. As such, two of the actors in the industry were actively participating in creative a framework for the market forces to operate in. A third important shareholder, the consumer, is, however, not consulted in this process.

The article shows the political debate arising from the economic dispute as well. The Labor Party insists that this resolution is a move of its political opposition aimed at not defending the rights of the workers, but rather at ensuring that a regulatory body has virtually unlimited powers that it can apply to workers in the respective industry.

This assertion seems rather far fetched. First of all, this is a measure that affects both the workers and the employers, so it will not create an advantage for one of the parties to the detriment of the other. Second of all, this is an overarching body, with a role in the entire industry, not limited to the category of construction workers. However, this comes as an additional argument of how intertwined economy and society are: what could be interpreted as an economic dispute quickly becomes a political and social/societal one, with the implication of a large category of shareholders.