Gourt Home::Gourt :: Nanny state
The term nanny state, used especially in the U.S. and U.K., is a derogatory term for state protectionism, interventionism, or regulation policies as they are perceived as being institutionalised as common practice. Its usage varies by political context, but in general its used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect ("nanny"), govern or control particular aspects of society. Which particular aspects are considered or claimed to be excessively protected depends on usage. Political usage of the term confines itself in accordance with scope, referring to:
- national economic and social policies (regulation and intervention) that affect large and state-favored businesses, or
- international trade policies that favor native corporate industries (protectionism).
For example U.S. conservatives (ie. free market, Capitalists) have used the term in objection to what it claims is excessive in their desire to protect consumers, through state regulations of business, or otherwise social aspects which have an impact upon business, and have appeal as populist causes. Liberals on the other hand have used the term to describe the state as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class —protections ostensibly made against the public good, and the good of consumers. This usage applies to the international context as well, where the "public good" is used to refer to people in general, and where the state is viewed as being excessive in its protection of native business over foreign (rival) businesses.
One of the term's earliest uses was in an article in The Spectator in the mid-1960s, by the Conservative MP Iain Macleod. The noted American foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky regularly uses the term "nanny state" to refer to U.S. protectionist policy, which he notes runs in contrast to its own claimed principles of competition and free market.
Various uses
Libertarians typically object to policies such as bans on smoking in public places, high taxes on junk food, bans on recreational drug use, anti-pornography laws, a legal drinking age or legal smoking age that is higher than the age of majority, censorship, and content regulation are seen by their opponents as an example of a functioning nanny state. Such actions are said to operate on the assumption that the state (or, more often, one of its local authorities) has a duty to protect the citizenry from their own harmful behaviour, and that it knows best what constitutes harmful behaviour.
A separate category of decisions claimed to represent a nanny state are those which emerge from extreme application of public health, risk management of health and safety policies. Examples have included the felling of mature horse chestnut trees by Norwich City Council in case children slipped on fallen chestnuts, or Tewkesbury's Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership delaying providing napkins with crime prevention information to elderly people receiving home delivered meals from the local council, until a risk assessment of the dangers of choking could be carried out.
Conservatives and libertarians tend to use the term to oppose new government regulations, although many traditional conservatives may also advocate paternalism, which some liberals and socialists regard as being much the same as a nanny state. A common criticism of nanny state policies is that they are less concerned with the welfare of citizens than with preventing litigation.
The British Labour Party politician Margaret Hodge is perhaps the best known defender of the nanny state, saying at a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 26 November, 2004, that "some may call it the nanny state but I call it a force for good".
The city state of Singapore has a reputation as a nanny state, owing to the considerable number of government regulations and restrictions on its citizens' lives. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the architect of the modern Singapore, has observed that "if Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one."
In addition, many public safety groups in the United States are seen as advocates of a nanny state. The pre-eminent pro-nanny state organizations in the United States are Center for Science in the Public Interest and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
See also
Resources
"Nanny state"