As someone who comes from the 'North Atlantic Anglo-American' perspective of recent economic history, it has always struck me as strange and fascinating to read how Australia and New Zealand pushed through neoliberal market reforms under ostensibly centre-left social democratic Labor governments (My knowledge of Hawke-Keating is considerably greater than 'Rogernomics,' but as I understand the trends were generally analogous in NZ).
My own reading of it is, coloured as it is by my own political biases, is that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were able to do for Australia, what Ronald Reagan did to America and what Margaret Thatcher did to Great Britain (that is they were able to revitalize moribund, industrial economies through free market deregulation and integration into the globalized economy, creating in their place dynamic & competitive modern economies & financial sectors) without creating too much inequality, and without also catalyzing the forces of 'dog-whistle populism & Christian fundamentalism' in the case of the Reagan Republicans, and traumatic class warfare in the case of Thatcher.
The reason I would say this is that the Australian (& NZ) middle class appear to be a lot stronger and seem to have more sustainable economic prospects than their American and British counterparts; with as these articles state 50% real wage increase in AUS compared to the stagnant trends in the US:
"In the 80s and 90s, the Hawke-Keating governments turned policy orthodoxy on its head and deregulated the product, capital and labour markets. The reforms were driven by pragmatism and necessity, not ideology. And the benefits to the Australian economy are enduring. Keating, despite some claims to the contrary, remains in the embrace of those policies. “The deregulation optimised the economic opportunities for Australia and produced 25 years of continuous economic growth, a massive increase in personal wealth and a 50 per cent increase in real wages, with low levels of unemployment and inflation,” he says. “The policies worked a treat." Source
Meanwhile in the US:
"Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute." Source
Basically, as I see it, the Oceanians were able to do free markets but get away with the most socially inclusive outcomes possible. Of course, some of the nastiness came in the form of Pauline Hanson and a little bit of it from the Howard Liberals, but by and large the record of AUS & NZ looks a lot better than the US & UK.
My AH challenge would be to come up with a scenario where the US & UK pursue 'progressive deregulation' under centre-left governments akin to what happened down under. My own best bet would be Robert F. Kennedy or perhaps a second Carter term in place of Reagan, and someone like Roy Jenkins at the head of the SDP in place of Thatcher. But feel free to go in any direction within these general parameters and be as detailed or not as you'd like.
My own reading of it is, coloured as it is by my own political biases, is that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were able to do for Australia, what Ronald Reagan did to America and what Margaret Thatcher did to Great Britain (that is they were able to revitalize moribund, industrial economies through free market deregulation and integration into the globalized economy, creating in their place dynamic & competitive modern economies & financial sectors) without creating too much inequality, and without also catalyzing the forces of 'dog-whistle populism & Christian fundamentalism' in the case of the Reagan Republicans, and traumatic class warfare in the case of Thatcher.
The reason I would say this is that the Australian (& NZ) middle class appear to be a lot stronger and seem to have more sustainable economic prospects than their American and British counterparts; with as these articles state 50% real wage increase in AUS compared to the stagnant trends in the US:
"In the 80s and 90s, the Hawke-Keating governments turned policy orthodoxy on its head and deregulated the product, capital and labour markets. The reforms were driven by pragmatism and necessity, not ideology. And the benefits to the Australian economy are enduring. Keating, despite some claims to the contrary, remains in the embrace of those policies. “The deregulation optimised the economic opportunities for Australia and produced 25 years of continuous economic growth, a massive increase in personal wealth and a 50 per cent increase in real wages, with low levels of unemployment and inflation,” he says. “The policies worked a treat." Source
Meanwhile in the US:
"Though productivity (defined as the output of goods and services per hours worked) grew by about 74 percent between 1973 and 2013, compensation for workers grew at a much slower rate of only 9 percent during the same time period, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute." Source
Basically, as I see it, the Oceanians were able to do free markets but get away with the most socially inclusive outcomes possible. Of course, some of the nastiness came in the form of Pauline Hanson and a little bit of it from the Howard Liberals, but by and large the record of AUS & NZ looks a lot better than the US & UK.
My AH challenge would be to come up with a scenario where the US & UK pursue 'progressive deregulation' under centre-left governments akin to what happened down under. My own best bet would be Robert F. Kennedy or perhaps a second Carter term in place of Reagan, and someone like Roy Jenkins at the head of the SDP in place of Thatcher. But feel free to go in any direction within these general parameters and be as detailed or not as you'd like.