Second Best
As I listened to the debate on Syria last week in the House of Commons, I had a flashback moment which took me back to my days as a student - and the theory of Second Best.
Now stay with me because this is not really as boring as it sounds - even though it involves economics and what makes a market economy work.
If I remember correctly, the theory of Second Best was propounded by a Canadian economist - Richard Lipsey - and the crux of the argument was that in any situation where market forces fail to deliver the expected outcome, the best thing to do is nothing - just sit on your hands.
The reasons for this unexpectedly simple solution is that the market knows best - and the market will, over time, take any corrective action that is necessary - so the free market should be left to its own devices because any interference from governments and politicians will only make things worse - or Second Best.
In other words, the theory of Second Best trumpets the cause of laissez faire economics in which the free market is King - that any intervention from public policy makers can only result in a bad situation being made worse.
I've no idea whether Richard Lipsey's theory still carries much weight these days, but it did back in the 1980s - when Margaret Thatcher's government dominated the political landscape in the UK.
I doubt it can be so popular now - not least because an unrestrained 'free market' led to the great economic crash in 2008 and countries around the world are still living with the consequences to this day.
Yet the task of climbing out of the greatest economic recession since the 1930s has been led by governments of different colours around the globe - working together to save the banking system from complete collapse.
The free market may still be there ready to pick up the pieces again - but I know of no serious commentator who argued that governments should simply withdraw from the great financial crisis - because it was much too messy and that we should just leave the free market to sort things out by itself.
Which brings me back to Syria and what, if anything, might be achieved launching a military strike against the Assad regime - will intervention make things better or worse?
If the purpose of any military intervention is to prevent further murderous attacks on Syrian civilians, weaken the position of President Bashar al-Assad and encourage a political solution to the civil war - then on balance I'm in favour.
Because it seems to me that the laissez faire approach favoured by the Hands off Syria campaign and others is hopelessly naive - a bit like tackling a global economic crisis with the theory of Second Best.
