I don’t quite know
what to make of David Cameron’s recent evangelising on the subject of women in
the boardroom. He’s certainly right on
the point of principle; the low level of female directors in our major
companies represents a significant loss of potential talent if one assumes, as
I do, that talent and ability are fairly evenly distributed between the sexes.
I’m not convinced, though,
about his claim that this failure alone accounts for such a significant degree
of economic failure in the UK, nor that putting it right will have the claimed
level of economic impact. The fact that
Norwegian business, with its much higher level of female representation in the board
room, is doing well is not proof that the one is the result of the other. There are a lot of other differences between
the Norwegian and UK
economies.
I wonder whether
his alighting on this particular issue might not have more to do with his poll
ratings amongst female voters than it has to do with economics. I also wonder how his hint that the Government
will legislate if necessary to impose quotas sits with his repeated claims that
businesses are already over-regulated and must be freed from state interference
in the way they operate. It doesn’t look
or sound consistent to me.
I’d actually
support such legislation if it were to be introduced, but I’m not expecting to
see it any time soon. And I can’t escape
the nagging doubt that criticising the lack of women in the board room is a bit
of a diversion from the fact that the government’s economic policies can hardly
be described as successful. It almost
looks like blaming somebody or something else.
Posts
