Choice is the essence of modern democracy. But do we have as much as we imagine? Can more choice mean less? David Lipsey assesses the costs and limits of choice in consumption and welfareby David Lipsey / January 20, 1997 / Leave a comment
Published in January 1997 issue of Prospect Magazine
At any time, in any culture there are some beliefs which are simply beyond challenge. In our own time, in our own culture, one such is the supremacy of individual choice.
The concept is woven into the fabric of political discourse. It underlies the universal acceptance, by all serious parties, of market forces. It marks taboo areas into which none dare stray: choice in health (the right to buy your way out of the public sector); choice in education (ditto for schools); choice in consumption (no more tax-and-spend). It is an unexamined article of faith.
That it should be so is not surprising. The ability to choose is an important distinction between humankind and the animal kingdom. Choice is the essence of democracy and the absence of choice is synonymous with dictatorship. Individual choice was central to the Renaissance, although in those days material choice was not its most important aspect. There are lots of things we like about choice: control, freedom, autonomy. Political movements which seek to eliminate choice, as certain Muslim fundamentalist movements do, send a frisson of horror down our spines.
Although Prospect is a liberal organ, it would be trying even its boundaries to seek to argue that choice is a bad thing. It is not. However, you can have too much even of a good thing. I will argue that there are significant costs and limits to choice which are often underestimated and that real choice cannot be reduced to a set of atomised individual choices.