Filter By

The Customer and the Citizen

On the limits of government imitating business

In the various activities that we tend to in our daily life - whether taking a train, sending children to school, or recovering in a hospital - each form part of a mosaic, which together shape our existence, our humanity, and which, when pictured in our mind, give us reason to get up in the morning. This mosaic forms not only part of ourselves, but takes on additional meaning when regarded in relation to our varied roles, relationships and responsibilities, as father or mother, professional (doctor, lawyer, etc...) and citizen.

The managerial trend within government, that began in the 1980's, during the feverish days of Thatcherism, has gradually spread and infiltrated to every facet of public services. This has become sometimes onerously evident for workers in the public sector with the emphasis on meeting targets. For the broad mass of the population, the trend has perhaps become notable in a subtle even seemingly insignificant way as there has been a change in the way we find ourselves addressed when using public services. We have now, it seems, become the customer.

When traveling the tube, we are no longer "passengers", but customers, as we are politely told during announcements. When borrowing a book from the library, we are not "readers", but customers. The NHS now talks about improving its customer service, to those who had been known as "patients". Even people who are seeking work, are referred to as customers, when in receipt of government assistance. It should come as no surprise then that victims of crime are now known as customers by the police. In this vein, a recent report by the Ministry of Justice examined how human rights could be used effectively for improving customer satisfaction with public services.

For all the virtues of the efficiency drive in the public services, there is a limitation to which government can imitate business with realism. At a certain point, the mimicking of business practices starts to resemble a forty-year old who adopts the dress and mannerisms of a teenager. After all, the government is a different creature and has certain worthy features of its own to live up to. The purpose of business is to serve particular interests, these being their customers and, foremost, the bottom-line of its own profits. Conversely, government has a mandate to adopt a universal standpoint on its responsibilities, and to consider the interests and needs of all citizens and the broader population.

Indeed, this is precisely the distinction between the individual considered as customer and the individual considered as citizen. The customer is formed by a purchase, which is the particular contract between the individual and the business and is enduring only to the degree that the customer returns to do business with the same company. In contrast, the individual as a citizen concerns the universe of activities that the individual takes up in a civic role, whether as a worker, a family member or as a student. This must necessarily be the case, because in setting laws and programmes to regulate and enable citizen activity, the state aims to ensure that the most fundamental duties and commitments of citizens do not contradict, but complement each other in the various spheres of activity.

Public services exist, to a large degree, to ensure that individuals are empowered to coherently serve in these various civic roles that make up an active life. Often these are essential services, which might not be profitable for business to provide with for all citizens at a reasonable price, but without which the life of citizens would be impeded.

The epithets that are given to these various activities that fill our lives intimate the diverse roles we serve within the civic sphere of existence. As a "passenger" on the tube, we are not just a customer purchasing a ticket for a ride, but we are traveling somewhere. Where? To work, to visit a museum to go to a concert. As a "reader" in the library, from from merely purchasing a service, we are reading to enter the world of imagination, or educating ourself in the hope of becoming the next great scientist.

While 'satisfaction' of users is important and certainly should not be ignored, this is also a narrow measure, which could blind us to what these services are actually for. When a business seeks customer satisfaction, this is only so as to ensure that the customers will be returning to do more business. The concern of government though is, or at least should be, to put in place the conditions for citizens to have the opportunity to reach their potential within society. The discordant ring of saying that human rights should be used to increase customer satisfaction is that the satisfaction felt by a customer is an immediate sense relating to a personal preference, whereas the realization of a right is for a purpose that is enduring and stems from a recognition of our togetherness as humanity.

While the shift from the more descriptive names for our activities to the usage of the bland term, 'customer', may not be a policy matter with great implications, nevertheless the development signifies our progress to a less cohering society, where the relationships that are formed in public services are regarded as a contract of mutual self-interest in an isolated sphere of its own, where the broad idea of a citizen with rich complementing and integrated facets of life has become supplanted by the individual seeking personal satisfaction where this is to be had. To replace the citizen with the customer is to lose the sense of unity that holds our lives together, individually and collectively, in favour of a hoped for efficient gratification of immediate needs and fragmented desires.

Comments on: The Customer and the Citizen

Gravatar Adam 14 March 2010
"Attention subjects, this bus will now terminate at the next stop. You have no constitutional recourse."
Reply
Gravatar Joshua Glinert 12 March 2010
FFB -

Thank you very much for the reference to the BBC article, which was very enlightening. This is a very interesting question as to what it means to be a subject in this day and age.

The issue as to the relationship between business and government and what the nature of a partnership might be raises important questions. This blog piece, of course, is refering to when government adopts the language (and implicitly the ethos) of business. Such an approach necessarily has limitations, because it lends itself to the atrophy of what is the most important quality of government, that is, the universal standpoint.

I suppose if we are to answer the question as to the relationship, we must ask ourselves what is it that business has to offer, which government does not have? What is the allure of business? Perhaps this seems an obvious question, but is easily overlooked. From my understanding, business is simply a way of organizing things primarily on the principle of self-interest. The ethos of efficiency is really the ethos of necessity, i.e., we must make sure that we run things efficiently, otherwise we may lose revenue and this will go against our self-interest.

However, as we know, (or at least the blog article explored and as Jon Harvey eloquently explained in his blog piece), such an ethos is not suitable to the level of complexity and subtlety of considerations of government. The question is, why do we believe that we have to be driven by a brute form of self-interest (i.e., the business ethic) in order to accomplish anything well? Why do we have the impression that we can most trust institutions that are most explicitly self-interested (i.e., businesses)?

Clearly the limits of central planning were demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, that does not mean that we cannot practice enough thoughtfulness and self-control to deliberately and effectively plan services for the public, where this does not attend to every detail of citizens lives in a totalitarian manner and leaves a sphere of autonomy for business. The allure of business is perhaps similar to the allure of the celebrity, it is to be impressed by the glamour of success. However, while a celebrity might have very real talents, it does not mean they have the qualifications to speak intelligently on every matter of public concern. Similarly, while business does have real virtues, there is nevertheless a virtue that is unique to government that must be taken seriously and cultivated, if we are to continue to elevate ourselves as a society.
Reply
Gravatar Fake Fan Base 11 March 2010

Joshua

Sorry to intrude, but re Subjects and Citizens, this might help.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm

FFB

Reply
Gravatar Fake Fan Base 11 March 2010
This is an interesting debate.

I think there is a specific domain for the type of systems approaches to understanding what 'customers' want, but this should not invade, as it does, the kind of priorites that citizens have for the development for of their communities. The real challenge will be to empowerer citizens to help themselves; away from the point of transaction as customers and even patients, to self supporting communities of interest/association. Our financial predicament demands solutions of this order, and the conceptual hierarchy for a cohesive should respond appropriately.


The ability to apply quality approaches to vastly different kinds of systems including relationships between commissioners and providers through very complex partnerships will be a challenge, but we are told that there are consultants out there who have the answers. We see an understandable pre election market positioning and jostling. A conceputal muddle then follows.....but yes, we can always find a little motherhood and apple pie.


Reply
Gravatar Joshua Glinert 11 March 2010
Phillip -

Thank you for your comment. I had to think about your question somewhat, since I am not sure of the distinction between the idea of citizenship in a republic and citizenship in a monarchy. I realize that much of the ideals of citizenship were developed in reflection upon the republican form of government, stretching back to ancient Rome. However, could being subject to a monarch adds another dimension? Would it be maybe that of commitment to the nation being of equal value? I would be curious to learn more about this perspective.
Reply
Gravatar Brendan O'Donovan 11 March 2010
Hi Joshua,

A stimulating piece. I agree with you about the damaging trend of seeing citizens in a more narrow way which arose contemporaneously to the political move towards managerialism in the 1980s. However, I think there is an important distinction to be made between the need for politicians to have a conception of us as rounded citizens rather than self-interested rational actors and the differnt, separate process that one should go through when designing public services that work. This is a relatively subtle distinction though: one is dealing with the abstract political notions of how we create the good society whilst the other is a more straightforward, empirically testable decision of how we best deal with the demands of patients to get treatment, passengers to have trains that arrive on time, etc. I agree that the all pervasive language of conventional business management is increasingly irritating as it filters through to us as the end users of these services. It is most annoying when we are called a 'customer' and still usually given terrible service! Unfortunately, this is the influence of the hegemonic position in management theory occupied by the big US business schools which directly evolved from the factory management of Henry Ford, Alfred Sloan and the era of mass production. Following their prescriptions leads to wrong-headed consequences: for example, by calling patients 'customers' the NHS is led (by well meaning but hapless managerialist politicians) down the road of 'rate my doctor' a la Trip Advisor or Amazon. This type of rating has the effect of trivialising the relationship between a public servant and the user of the service. What would be more important would be to decide what matters to the patient by studying the systems the doctor works in over time and then redesigning services to better meet the patient's needs (e.g. you may discover that it is actually the poorly designed appointments system which is causing a normally polite doctor to rush his consultations and consequently be rated as surly on a feedback website. The most likely management outcome would be that the doctor would be sent on 'customer service' training whilst the systemic cause would be missed). A richer picture of the patients' needs can thus be drawn by systematically studying the work of the service at the point of transaction. In actual fact, when you find public services that have been designed in such a way that they work well for users, there is a welcome unintended consequence that they can actually lead to greater citizen engagement in their communities.

As I said, these are realtively nuanced points which I hope that John Seddon and I may get the chance to explore in future on the blog. Thanks again for provoking me to think a bit more about this subject! Brendan O'Donovan
Reply
Gravatar Dick Turpin 10 March 2010
Fake Fan Base: I agree with you.

However, I think we need to lever in the private sector for sure, but on different terms. The question is: how?

The idea that the private sector take their place as 'citizens' or 'creators' of citizens in a civil economy is unrealistic.

I suppose this is why 'social business' is so exciting - because it enables private companies to discharge their roles as actors in a civil society, rather than merely as efficiency creators for 'taxpayers' (or indeed as 'experience improvers' for customers - query do they do that)

A better binary is required. I certainly don't think that 'subject' is part of it.

Perhaps local government should seek to balance the needs of 'creators' and 'participants' instead?
Reply
Gravatar Fake Fan Base 10 March 2010
The political strategy (if this really exists!) and language of local government is particularly important. The emphasis on the word 'customer' in local government is often balanced with that of 'taxpayer' - which doubles up as a moral majority/offer to voters. Everyone is a customer or should be treated as on in relation to their point and rationale for exchange with local government and the public sector. This is a short step from there being 'no such thing as society' or genuine community of interest. The private sector can then be introduced or imitated to fill the gap of a weakly conceptualised ‘value chain’ (based on ‘customer’ expectations) – whilst maintaining a neat balance of words within a seemingly coherent ideology.

The use of the more generic word and less easily defined word: 'Citizen', could be more in-keeping with less fragmented and even more cost effective associations, for instance, association with the voluntary sector.

Does the word ‘citizen’ imply the existence of a republic?
Reply
Gravatar PhillipBlond 10 March 2010
A good piece Josh - what though do you think about the idea that we are subjects of the Crown not citizen's of the Republic?
Reply
Gravatar Jon Harvey 09 March 2010
Hear hear - could not agree more!

http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/09/citizens-not-customers.html
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.