Since the collapse of the planned economy there have been two types of market economy on offer in Europe. The struggle between them is seen as a contest over social values.
The "Anglo-American" model is competitive, risk-taking and aggressive. Firms seek to expand at the expense of their rivals, and to move into new markets whenever possible. The tension between bankers and shareholders, between investors, employees and customers, is a dynamic one held in check only by the presence of competitors and by the rules which try to channel the aggression into acceptable outlets.
The alternative, the "continental model," stresses the virtues of cooperation and compromise. Long-term partnerships are reached. Banks become partners to investors. Representatives of capital and labour meet round tables to thrash out common positions. People see each other's point of view, and work together to iron out points of conflict. In this more ordered world, the hostile takeover is a rare thing; a sign that things have gone wrong, rather than the emblem of rude vitality which the more vigorous market model takes it to be.
In the Anglo-American model, business is a tough contact sport; in the continental model it bears more of the hallmarks of a group activity. It is the difference between water polo and synchronised swimming.
There is a striking parallel between the competing economic models, and the characteristics commonly taken to express the dominant features of the male and female personalities. In the stereotype, the male is seen as the risk-taker, reaching outwards-aggressive and competitive. The female, on the other hand, has superior social skills, a better understanding of others, and an ability to relate to them. His is the world of fight and win, hers of understanding, compromise and conciliation.
Just as the male world has its clear winners and losers, so the full-blooded market economy exhibits huge differences of outcome and achievement. There are great disparities of income. The opportunities are certainly there, but they include failure as well as success. Critics often equate it to the animal world, with its "jungle morality."
The cooperative model has many features often included among the feminine virtues. Some do better than others, but there is no great gulf between winners and losers, between the dominant alphas and the others. Life is more ordered and ritualised. There are procedures and practices to draw all groups into it. Success is shared. There is more emphasis on cooperation than competition.
All analogies are imperfect, of course, including this one. Superimposed upon this division are factors such as French nationalism, which opposes the more aggressive version not because it is more aggressive, but because it is not French. That said, though, the analogy does express key differences between the continental and the Anglo-American approach. It might be significant that our law is adversarial and combative, whereas theirs is inquisitorial and cooperative. Our political systems produce winners; theirs produces coalitions. Our philosophical tradition is empirical; theirs favours the grand integrative systems.
New Labour feels more comfortable with the style, if not the substance, of the continental approach. It feels happier with all groups included, with a greater degree of equality, and with a collectivist spirit of working things out together. Government fits more naturally as a player in this game. The more runaway market model sees government as an uneasy bystander-perhaps as a father to rebel against.
The nearly extinct patrician Tories also felt happier with the consensual model, with people in stable relationships with each other. The new Tories, on the other hand, including William Hague himself, are quite at home with the fast-churning mobility of the dynamic model, and see the opportunities for social change in a positive light because they offer chances to people who never had them before.
Each model offers different virtues. The dynamic model is more innovative, quicker to adapt. It moves its capital around more rapidly and uses it more efficiently-some would say ruthlessly. The cooperative model achieves long-term consolidation and predictability. It does not discard capital (financial or human) so readily.
Will the thrusting male qualities win out over the cooperative stability represented by the female economy? Perhaps the answer depends on the circumstances. In periods of long-term stability, the female qualities may help bring about a more balanced, less erratic social order, one in which more of the participants feel they make a valuable and valued contribution.
But at times of upheaval, the balance of advantage probably shifts to the male side, with risk-taking and innovation giving the best chance of adapting to change. Our economies may now be on the cusp of such a transition. The new economy could be as different from its predecessor as the economies which emerged from the industrial revolutions were from theirs.
If this is true, it will be the fast-moving model which has the advantage. Its ability to seize opportunities and adapt rapidly to change will give it the edge. Its male qualities will thrive amid the risk and uncertainty. The more co-operative, feminine virtues of its rival will have to wait until the upheaval gives way, if it ever does, to quieter, more settled times.
