• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Professions or price

by Simon Longstaff

Recent reports by the Trade Practices Commission and the Independent Committee of Inquiry Into Competition, headed by Professor Fred Hilmer, have fuelled debate about the extent to which the professions should be subject to unfettered 'market forces'. While conventional wisdom dictates that competition is the cure for all the nation's ills, I would like to suggest that a note of caution be injected into the debate. In sounding this note, my main concern is that the community not sacrifice the possibility of an increase in value in return for a simple reduction in price.

The key to the debate about competition and the professions lies in an assessment of whether or not society benefits from having groups of skilled people able to operate in closed markets because of their promise to act in ways designed to guarantee the wellbeing of the community. It is sometimes argued that restrictions of the kinds applied to the professions work to guarantee quality of service.

This seems to miss the point. Critics quite rightly argue that the mechanisms of the market can assure the same or better quality of service. The real difference is that members of the professions are supposed to put aside the primary pursuit of personal benefit in the interests of creating the conditions for a better community. While not incompatible with a market system, it is less likely that an active concern to work for the common good will be foremost in the minds of those who owe primary allegiance to the disciplines of the market.

Thus is fashioned the bones of an argument for thinking twice before relying too heavily on the principles of competition to define the organisation of the professions.

The problem is that although the argument has merit, the actual practice of many professionals seems to make a lie of it. Whatever the facts of the matter, many people do not believe that the professions are motivated by a spirit of public service. Too many people see the professions as being elitist and secretive. Too many people think that the professional societies and associations put the interests of their members before all others. Too many people recall the activities of professional people who surrendered their independence and judgement to become nothing more than ‘hired guns’.

The other counter-argument against the professions is along the lines that people ought to be able to choose less competent or committed advisers. Let each individual take a personal risk and pay for what they get.

There is a clear response to this. The first element involves pointing out that this would relegate the poor (or more likely the middle class) to a position in which they could only afford the services of the less skilled. The second element of the rebuttal would explore what this might mean for the community as a whole.

It is important that there be a clear assessment of whether the community would be generally better off with competition being the chief determinant of how the professions operate.

At the very least there must be a case for serious thought about the significance of a legacy which involves a tradition of putting public service before personal gain.

Society has always thought it prudent to reserve certain tasks to particular groups who have displayed special competence or who have been prepared to offer special advantages in return for their privileges.

If the professions are to mount a convincing case they will need to do more than talk about their ability to give primary importance to the provision of public service. Beyond this they will have to take the initiative and put the principles into practice.

But they should be warned: the community will not tolerate mere displays of window dressing. A strategy based on the manipulation of images would be the ultimate act of folly.

discuss this article

---