In the 2000 budget, for example, "Closing the Gaps" was all the rage but by the time the 2001 budget rolled around, economic growth was the all important issue. But as China is finding out right now rapid economic growth - and yes China unlike New Zealand really does have rapid economic growth - can at least initially increase income inequality. As economist Kenneth Rogoff has recently written,
... income inequality in China has leapfrogged that of the US and Russia, which is no small feat. Rising inequality is placing enormous strains on the political system, as is evident from a recent sequence of ill-considered policies that have been aimed at mitigating the problem.So was "Closing the Gaps" really important in 2000 but unimportant in 2001, when suddenly economic growth became so important that it had to be archived despite the fact that it could, at least in the short term, "Widen the Gaps"?
And this is just one example of an apparent inconsistency in budget statements. Given the ease with which Roger Kerr seems to be able to find such inconsistencies I wonder why journalists have not been raising this issue. A rational, organised, well articulated economic vision for the country would seem to be desirable if we are to achieve what ever economic goals it is that the government has. It would also be nice if the government could spell out, and stick to, these goals in a consistent manner. But the lack of interest by journalists may be related to another recent Kerr article in the ODT on the standard of economic journalism in this country.
But perhaps the major reason for ever changing budget statements is that the government is just pandering to what it perceives as the current concerns of voters. After all, the main concern of any government is remaining the government, no matter what the cost to the country at large. Just think of the current situation in Zimbabwe for an extreme example.