5th December 2005, 03:07 PM
Hi P-MP,
To be fair, you are quoting me out of context! The first point you quote I was trying to say that competitive tendering was not necessarily the reason that wages etc got better after PPG16 than they were before, other factors were at play. There is no contradiction between that and saying that present wages are poor because of the free market and cut throat competition between units.
On your further point, of course I agree that free market economics are the dominant paradigm, but not exclusively so. Not all professions are the same - nurses and doctors? Rail engineers (recently re-nationalised in all but name 'cos the free market wasn't working)? Archaeological curators?
Also, if we are going to go into this, some markets are more free than others. Some are heavily regulated by the state (e.g. private nurseries, undertakers) which doesn't necessarily affect wages, but is done for quality purposes), some require accreditation by a professional body (architects, independent financial advisors, etc), some services are only available from local government (building inspectors)etc, etc.
At the moment archaeology is on a par with car repair garages in that it is relatively poorly regulated, but I suggest that is not the best set-up in the long term. But it is simply not the case that all services are abandoned to the same relatively unregulated free-market that archaeology is.
Also, I don't agree with your charecterisation of the archaeology market:
Luckily for me I work for a unit that pays well and does good archaeology, but in my experience it is the exception (and its certainly weak in the training and pension areas). The mass of archaeology units pay rubbish, but because they are staffed by dedicated professionals, they produce good archaeology when they are able to. I'm not nit-picking - I think your characterisation suggests that the current free market at least works some of the time i.e when clients are looking for high quality work (because the curator has specified it). Yet it is not the case that there is a connection between high quality work and higher wages and benefits.
Perhaps we need a more regulated market, perhaps accreditation, perhaps getting rid of the market altogether. But I am certain that we should not merely accept the current system.
To be fair, you are quoting me out of context! The first point you quote I was trying to say that competitive tendering was not necessarily the reason that wages etc got better after PPG16 than they were before, other factors were at play. There is no contradiction between that and saying that present wages are poor because of the free market and cut throat competition between units.
On your further point, of course I agree that free market economics are the dominant paradigm, but not exclusively so. Not all professions are the same - nurses and doctors? Rail engineers (recently re-nationalised in all but name 'cos the free market wasn't working)? Archaeological curators?
Also, if we are going to go into this, some markets are more free than others. Some are heavily regulated by the state (e.g. private nurseries, undertakers) which doesn't necessarily affect wages, but is done for quality purposes), some require accreditation by a professional body (architects, independent financial advisors, etc), some services are only available from local government (building inspectors)etc, etc.
At the moment archaeology is on a par with car repair garages in that it is relatively poorly regulated, but I suggest that is not the best set-up in the long term. But it is simply not the case that all services are abandoned to the same relatively unregulated free-market that archaeology is.
Also, I don't agree with your charecterisation of the archaeology market:
Quote:quote:1. high-end professionals who pay higher wages, offer pensions, training and other benefits - and therefore attract better staff who do better jobs and therefore can charge higher fees...
2. ...people who charge as little as possible, pay peanuts, give their staff no training or benefits and do a crap job
Luckily for me I work for a unit that pays well and does good archaeology, but in my experience it is the exception (and its certainly weak in the training and pension areas). The mass of archaeology units pay rubbish, but because they are staffed by dedicated professionals, they produce good archaeology when they are able to. I'm not nit-picking - I think your characterisation suggests that the current free market at least works some of the time i.e when clients are looking for high quality work (because the curator has specified it). Yet it is not the case that there is a connection between high quality work and higher wages and benefits.
Perhaps we need a more regulated market, perhaps accreditation, perhaps getting rid of the market altogether. But I am certain that we should not merely accept the current system.