An interesting piece on Human Rights here in The Washington Post. The Cato Institute responds here.
RCM
Archive for December, 2009
A new take on rights
December 29th, 2009Scroogenomics
December 24th, 2009I haven’t read it (or indeed bought it and added it to my ‘pop Economics’ reading list). However, this is a great title for a book and an interesting concept. The ever-excellent Tim Harford blogs about it here.
Firstly, Scrooge has an unfair rep. People call misers ‘Scrooge’ but they forget the over-riding moral of the story. Having stood, and wept, over his cheap tombstone in an unkempt graveyard Scrooge repents and becomes a very model of generosity and kindness. As others mocked his about turn and laughed at him ‘he let them laugh and little heeded them. His own heart laughed and that was quite enough for him. And it was always said of him that he knew how to keep Christmas well if any man alive possessed such knowledge‘. We could all learn from that Scrooge – charitable, kind, not caring for what other people thought, full of the joys of Christmas. Scrooge, therefore, should be a compliment rather than an insult.
Secondly, as numerous economists point out, the stereotypical Scrooge is useful too. As Hartford points out in Prospect, Schelling’s classic Micro-motives and Macrobehaviour, sets out the pointlessness of many of the Christmas cards sent. ‘People feel obliged to send cards to people from whom they expect to receive them, often knowing that they will receive them only because the senders expect to receive cards in return’. This is a little like mutually assured destruction by politeness.
Hartford also points out the uselessness of sending gift vouchers – many are unredeemed and many end up on ebay which seems like a strange way of giving relatives money. Why not just give them the cash – that way they get to buy whatever they like from wherever they like (and, furthermore, get to keep the change!).
Landsburg in his book (More Sex Is Safer Sex*) argues that the original Scrooge is actually the model citizen. Indeed, the pre-repentant Scrooge is far more socially good than the charitable Scrooge at the end of the book. He was a rich man who didn’t spend money on food, wine or clothes. He ate gruel because it was cheap. This meant, fairly obviously, that there was chicken for someone else to eat. He lived well within his means – we could probably all learn from that too, even if we might forget it for the next week or two.
The money he so carefully accrued and saved was bunged in a bank and gathered interest for him. This helped capitalise a bank but also helped drive down interest rates and, better still, could be utilised by the bank to offer credit to other businesses – either as start-ups or as businesses needing liquidity during tough times. Again, this is a social good – good on Scrooge – the more he didn’t spend (e.g. saved) the more credit was available for others in the economy. He was an accidental Dragon.
Of course, if we were all Scrooge’s, there would be a problem. No one would consume the chicken or wine or chocolate – we would eat lots of gruel but people would be unwilling to enter a market because they couldn’t foresee people buying up the goods they were producing. They’d need to lay people off (or not employ them). The credit would, essentially, be useless as no one would be willing to take it up. So we need some Scrooge’s – both pre-repentance and post-repentance but not too many…
Have a very Merry Christmas
* Try reading that one on a crowded train
TV Debates
December 24th, 2009It was inevitable that Alex Salmond would give us a hue and cry about the televised leaders’ debates and the absence of the SNP’s invitation.
I think I agree with the common sentiment that the SNP or Plaid Cymru don’t have a place in the debates, Alex Salmond isn’t even standing for Westminster in the next General Election. Although the fuss was inevitable it does raise a slight issue with the debates. What are the criteria for inclusion?
I haven’t read anything that outlines how this was agreed between the parties and the broadcasters. Have they set an arbitrary share of the national vote criteria? If they have set one – what is it? Is it a condition that a party needs to be standing in all parts of the United Kingdom? Was consideration given to a debate between other ministers and shadow ministers to better reflect the parliamentary nature of our democracy?
There are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out but I dont think this from the SNP:
“The SNP are seeking to have a substantial influence at Westminster by electing a block of 20 or more MPs, with obvious UK-wide political implications – not least given the perfectly possible outcome of a hung parliament and tight arithmetic.”
has sufficient merit.
A fair carbon tax?
December 21st, 2009A very interesting couple of blog posts in the New York Times here and the follow up here.
On first impressions this seems like a very sensible plan. It still taxes carbon but only if we start recording warming point forwards. If the sceptics are right and man’s influence is irrelevant then we don’t pay any tax. However if warming is recorded an (what seems to be) exponential tax rate kicks in. There are fair criticisms of the scheme but most are answered pretty well by Dr McKitrick.
Raging against Joe
December 21st, 2009The defeat of X-Factor winner Joe McElderry in the race for the Christmas number 1 was amusing in its own right, but could it be the first sign that people are ready for a more liberal Government?
The estblished all-conquering two nights of prime time telly a week machine created by Cowell for the specific purpose of selling 500,000 records at Christmas was defeated by a couple on Facebook in their bedroom urging people to buy what they believed in, not what they were told to. If we apply the same logic to politics then is it so unreasonable to expect that people faced with increased taxes, failing public services, mountainous National debt, rising unemployment, dying soldiers and a resurgence of spin will vote not for the free spending and legislation happy political parties, but rather for individuals who have become frustrated with the size and ineptitude of the Governmant and want to see its role cut? In this scenario all the main political parties would get bloody noses as the electorate make it clear that the centre (Cameron, Brown, Clegg, Salmond) cannot act in an oligarchic and must instead respect the underlying priciple of a representative democracy that local MPs will vote in the best interests of their constituents and not just how they are told.
The main political parties have consistently peddled the idea that it is the Government’s role to solve any problems in the economy, but maybe the defeat of another seemingly invincible foe (Cowell – not Joe) can convince the public that any solution lies with them and that any political party advertising a cure-all driven by the state in the next few months is pushing nothing better or more helpfull than a Hannah Montana cover.
If my dream scenario of local MPs having to take a stand against their party does not materialise in the run-up to the election then lets hope that the Rage campaign has at least shown Brown et al that they must first ask the people of the UK what it is they want, rather than telling us.
The Post-Bureaucratic Age
December 19th, 2009Matthew d’Ancona writing in GQ focuses on one of David Cameron’s big ideas – the post-bureaucratic age (I cannot find a link to d’Ancona’s article but Cameron writes about it here).
The Cameroons are a much more ideological bunch than previous generations of Tories and are much more likely to read outside the traditional conservative texts and, when they come across an attractive idea, jump upon it. In recent years, as well as PBA (as, I believe, policy wonks are supposed to call it) the Tories have jumped on such ideas as liberal paternalism* and flat taxes. However, unlike these other ideological dalliances Cameron’s desire to see a Post-Bureaucratic Age is turning into a fairly lengthy affair – indeed,Steve Richards noticed this in 2007.
If we are to assume that this isn’t a gimmick (and I think that we should do so) this is (a) something that those who describe themselves as either big L or small L liberal is should welcome (b) potentially a sea-change idea in British political life.
The Cameroons want to attack Whitehall aggressively and, as a result of this, decentralise power. Labour have traditionally talked about the redistribution of wealth whereas the Conservatives are proposing a redistribution of power – they argue that the heavily centralised state of the 20th century is not necessarily appropriate for the 21st. This should be music to liberal ears and, indeed, some will wonder if Cameron hasn’t stolen their hymnbook. Michael Gove sums it up characteristically well here:
‘In every area of life the future rests not with the exercise of massive power from one central point but the enabling of growth through constant innovation and adaption. We can no longer control society as a diplodocus controlled its tail, from one tiny brain that is immeasurably distant from the action’
Many academics now talk about ‘Monitory Democracies’. A Monitory Democracy is how some other democracies around the world organise themselves. Power-monitoring and power-controlling devices (or ‘checks and balances’ to use old fashioned terminology) spread both across and through the entire political system.
This hasn’t happened in Britain. Look at Australia and see their integrity commissions which can ruthlessly expose corrupt politicos, civil servants and, even, the police. Canada has the Federal Accountability Act. I’m not sure if Cameron intends to go down these particular routes but ripping the power from central bureaucracy seems to be the heart of this philosophy.
So what does that mean?
This will mean more City Mayors with more powers, local control over schools, housing, hospitals and policing. The more radical plans would see the end of nationalised state benefits to localised welfare-to-work schemes. This will not get the pubs and bars of Liverpool and Gateshead chattering but it is a fundamental and mammoth shift from the status quo. If Cameron pulls it off, quite simply, Britain will be changed beyond recognition.
What are the problems? Firstly, ripping the power from the mandarins will be problematic. Secondly, as d’Ancona points out, will people buy it? Whilst we all moan about centralised power, ”too many bureaucrats and too much red tape” and many people instinctively like the idea of local provision and power in local hands, there is the nagging doubt that this is false bleating. When actually offered the chance to run a local school (or play a part in running it) many will say ‘too busy’, ‘don’t know how’, ’someone else can’ and so forth. As a society we are very used to having many things free at the point of use with no concomitant effort on our part – will we rise to such a challenge?
If PBA needs the people of Britain to stand up and be counted, to start taking an active part in the provision of the services that matter to their lives and to overhaul an out-dated system, it will also need a change in politics. If a local school isn’t performing, the Education Minister will need to keep his or her sticky beak out even if that means some negative headlines. If the public are to be encouraged to run schools and are trusted to do so they must be allowed to make some errors.
This, I believe, may be the big battleground in the coming years and one that will come to dominate political discourse in the UK. So, are we with the bureaucrats or with the post-bureaucrats?
Big L liberals may be annoyed that the Tories have nicked their localism ideas. The question that always occurs to me here is: If it is a good idea, why does it matter?
RCM
* And a critique of liberal paternalism here.
Communicating the national debt
December 13th, 2009Longer posts from all of us will follow this week, I’m sure, but in the meantime a link to this piece from Bill Jamieson (also covered by Massie). This is how the national debt must be communicated:
Next year, we will be paying £44.4bn in debt interest alone – never mind debt falling due for repayment.
That debt interest in 2010-11 will absorb the entire proceeds from capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, tobacco duties, wine and spirits duties, beer and cider duties, betting and gaming duties, air passenger duty, the climate change levy, the aggregates levy and Customs and Excise levies – and still leave £1bn to find.
That is extremely frightening.
RCM
Teach Last
December 9th, 2009Since 2002 Teach First, an independent charity, has brought many people who had never considered teaching before into schools across the England (the scheme, to the best of my knowledge, has not extended North of the border). Generally, these people were placed directly into challenging secondary schools.
The overarching mission behind TeachFirst is to address the various disadvantages that some schools and pupils have by bringing exceptional graduates into their schools. These graduates, usually from the Russell Group universities, are trained to become teachers very quickly. These young graduates are intended to lead and inspire their pupils and, furthermore, help break down social barriers. Now, we can all pick holes in this but, by and large, this is a pretty good idea.
Teach First teachers have some initial teacher training combined with volunteer coaching. This gives graduates the chance to teach for two years before going into a profession or into business (or, indeed, stay in teaching). The whole point of Teach First is to raise educational standards and to instil, in a generation of graduates, a motivation to understand, and desire to end, educational disadvantage. A second benefit is that many of these graduates would not normally consider a career in teaching and Teach First networking power can help them into business after a two-year stint.
Everyone benefits in TeachFirst – the teachers, the schools and the pupils.
I think this system can be twisted and improved. In the same way that talented young people can inspire school pupils, I am convinced there is some way that experience can do the same thing: Teach Last.
At present, it is very difficult for someone with a lifetime of experience in a given subject to teach that subject. Indeed, as the General Teaching Council makes it harder and harder for people who do not have a teaching qualification to teach in Scottish schools. I can understand their reasoning for doing this but believe that a slightly more flexible policy would be beneficial.
Each year, thousands of people across the UK and across Scotland retire in their 50s and early 60s. Many of these people have been massively successful within their own careers. I think that society should seek to utilise their experience where it is most needed – in our schools.
I also believe that many (although not all, obviously) of these people would like to put something back into society after a career. TeachLast gives them the opportunity to do so. Like Teach First, everyone benefits.
The idea behind TeachLast is very simple. Upon retirement, those retiring in certain fields should be given the option to teach in challenging secondary schools for one to two years.
Why is this good?
It connects subjects to the real world and all too often maths and science are taught in the abstract. Quite simply, not enough young people are studying maths and science. We aren’t producing enough engineers, scientists or mathematicians. Indeed, there are shortages in science and mathematics teachers largely because the graduate salaries graduates of these subjects can command will mean teaching is well off their radar. This has a huge detrimental effect on our society over the long-run. Gordon Brown, in a speech at Oxford University:
We all understand that science is fundamental to the future of our society and that disciplines where an understanding of science is important (engineering, energy) are equally important. At present, there are many science teachers teaching a subject with no degree in that subject or even if they do no real world knowledge of application.
I do not agree with Brown on many issues but the idea that people are teaching science with no real world knowledge of it is bad, the idea that people are teaching science with no degree in a science-subject is totally bonkers.
I think retiring engineers, pharmacists, chemists or physicists could show pupils in challenging areas that the sciences can lead to real-world careers and real-world success in fields like energy, engineering, pharmaceuticals and myriad others. In business studies, people who have run businesses would be of huge use. In maths, those who have used maths in their daily business – as economists, for example, again would be massively useful.
These people would (a) bring a level of expertise that is lacking (b) link academic subjects to the real world (c) give retirees the opportunity to put something back into society.
Now, of course, there are problems with this scheme:
a) Long time away from classroom/classroom has changed – yes, but I think this can be gotten around with Fast Track training or by watering down the scheme and having them in the class with other teachers.
b) Classroom teaching isn’t easy and people need training – see above.
c) Money is an issue. Will this calibre of people want to earn £23,000 per annum? Sure, some wouldn’t want to do this. Some would. If it was linked to a pension boost maybe more would.
d) Just because…. Just because some people are great at their jobs doesn’t mean they’ll be great teachers. I’m not saying just because someone has excellent subject knowledge they will be an excellent teacher… however, many will be and this can be assessed.
There are many strong teachers in the private sector with no formal Teacher Training – this doesn’t undermine teachers and neither should it. Obviously, the vast majority of teachers would still be those who have undertaken an undergraduate degree and then a PGCE or PGDE. That’s good.
I can’t see Teach Last doing any harm and can see it doing some good. So why not do it?
The Forth road bridge and Capital Investment in Scotland
December 9th, 2009Alex Salmond’s plea for Alistair Darling to accelerate capital spending from 2011-12 into 2010-11 in tomorrow’s pre-budget report and to provide extra funds in order to complete a new Forth road bridge by 2016 represents Keynesianism at its very worst.
Scotland’s unemployment rate stood at 7.2% between July and September of this year and a staggering 32% (claimant count measure) of those had been unemployed for more than the critical length of 6 months. The worst areas were North Ayrshire, Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire. The reason for this is simple: these areas were based around industries which have now been rendered uncompetitive by the access firms in developing and newly industrialised countries have to cheap labour and raw materials. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect these areas to improve in the future as the national minimum wage and lack of skilled labour deters potential investors.
The classic policy to deal with long-term structural unemployment is to increase spending in education and thus develop a more skilled and flexible labour force that allows entrepreneurs to capitalise on areas of potential comparative advantage within the economy, but the Scottish Government’s attempts to follow this path are undermined by the proposal of accelerated spending now and subsequent fiscal cuts over the next 20 years. Salmond and Swinney plan to spend the extra money on building affordable housing to help the long-term unemployed, but this reduces labour market flexibility by providing a disincentive to relocate and, given that Britain’s strengths are in financial services and that potential investors in this field are not interested in areas of economic depravation, compromises any educational schemes designed to increase the occupational mobility of Scotland’s workforce.
This is also the worst possible time for any Government to be embarking on a major spending plan, as the possibility of misallocating resources is so great. The absence of private sector demand means that the Government will be choosing the areas for investment, and not consumers and producers. The wrong choice, as shown above, leads to public debt without the increase in productive potential necessary to justify it, and the consequences of increased public debt are currently much more severe than usual. Britain is in grave danger of losing its triple AAA debt rating, and if that happens then interest rates will have to rise in order to attract the funds from abroad necessary to service our monumental current account deficit. Higher interest rates will deter private investment within the economy and thus lead to economic stagnation. The Scottish Government’s fiscal response would be handcuffed by the deal made over the Forth road bridge ensuring a reduced budget for 20 years.
The solution to the nightmare outlined above is to allow a private firm to construct a bridge and then let them charge a toll and keep the profits. If no firm deems this to be profitable then the project should not go ahead and the Government should continue to dry out the cables on the old bridge and thus prolong its life. The Scottish Government should also cut back its spending on affordable housing and instead promote more flexibility in the labour force which would encourage investment, reduce unemployment and lead to a long term increase in residential construction stimulated not by the Government, but rather by demand for houses.
