I have been in debate on another post with a UK accounting academic. I admit that the debate would not make an edifying read. I have found the commentators' observations irritating, to say the least. I explained why in a comment I have made on that post this morning but at the same time I have also responded to his suggestion that I should spend my time writing for academic journals. He suggested this because he believes that this would, rather bizarrely, prove my credibility even though I recall reading a while ago that the average UK academic journal paper was read by just six people, and that included the editor, the author and the peer reviewers. Having reflected on this issue I added the following comment, which I think worth sharing more widely (and I've edited it a little here):
At the core of your latest comment is an absolutely fundamental error of judgement, and that is that academic accounting has had anything whatsoever to offer to British society for many a long year. As a consequence you think that I should somehow seek academic approval for what I do, and that this would give it greater status. Why on earth would I want to do that? With the notable, and singular, exception of Prem Sikka academic accounting's track record over the last thirty or more years has been dire, and that is probably being kind to it.
Can you suggest one innovation in accounting that originated in the U.K.'s academic accounting network in that period? Can you name one accountant who was framed public debate in any way, apart from Prem? Is there an academic accountant who is in any way contributed to tax debate, apart from saying cutting it might be a benefit, without reason given?
Imagine what would have happened if I had submitted my work for peer review of the sort you suggest. Would country by country reporting exist? Would it now be on the agenda of the European Union, International Accounting Standards Board, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and others? Of course it wouldn't. Peer review would have prevented me publishing a paper on the subject. Academic accounting is about quoting from existing ideas, not developing new ones. That is the poverty of intellectual thought in the UK, exemplified in a discipline like accountancy that has no history of original thinking.
Would the debate on the tax gap, now prevalent in politics, have survived peer review? I very much doubt it. Methodology would have been torn apart forever, but the reality is that because I wrote about the tax gap for the TUC the government was forced to address the issue, whether it liked it or not. We still disagree about methodology, but the debate was created. That did not happen as a consequence of academic accounting.
And what about tax havens? Is the fundamental distortion of markets that they create an issue at your business school? Is the opacity that hiding accounts from public view that they encourage highlighted as an economic distortion? Is the opacity within consolidated accounts that ensures that large corporations can shift their profits without being subject to public scrutiny treated as a fundamental failure of our existing accounting framework within your department? Are academic accountants everywhere jumping up and down saying tax havens must be abolished to ensure that effective markets operate on behalf of all participants, large and small, and whether they're in business or its stakeholders? If not, why not? What corruption has led to this absolutely absurd position where you teach that markets are the solution to all problems and yet fail to highlight any of the abuses of markets that are promoted to ensure that the ordinary people of the world are exploited?
I will tell you what it is that ensures that these issues aren't raised. Firstly it is the appointments process. If you disagree with the system, then you won't get a job. If you do not buy into the absolutely fundamental (and absurd) underlying assumptions of neoliberal economics, even if you are an accountant, then you have absolutely no prospect of a career in a UK university business school or academic accounting department. Second, peer review ensures that this is the case. You must quote the opinions of those in authority, and approve them. If you do not your papers are not published. If you do not publish your career does not progress. The system has been set up to ensure that is the case. The neoliberal hegemony is enforced. Third, funding ensures that this is the case: far too many departments are dependent upon raising money from business or large firms of accountants. Their independence is, as a consequence, fundamentally threatened. Fourthly, and essentially, business wants to make sure that this is the case. It suits them very well have people like you placed in academic departments to suggest that people like me, who question the system, aren't up to the task of preparing an academic paper. How convenient it is to question my credibility. But they, and you, miss the whole point. I'm not choosing to play that game. I'm questioning the whole system, and the UK's business schools, in particular, exist for one reason and one reason only and that is to reinforce the neoliberal dogma which is destroying the capacity of UK business to think about anything but short-term trading. That is in turn destroying both our society, and by the destruction of the environment, the world at large.
I am, of course, open to comments but if they do not pass my peer review process they won't be published.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This would be a great CiF article in the Guardian. Might this not help promote the AABA/TJN Essex workshop too?
I’ll put it to them!
I assume I’m not the only academic that reads you blog, Richard, so it would be interesting to hear what others think to your comments. And I’m not in any way involved with accountancy, so can’t comment on that discipline specifically. Nor do I think things are as ineffectual (in terms of influencing public debate and policy making) in some disciplines as you suggest they are with accountancy.
That said, my experience is that generally speaking academia and academics have been sidelined in terms of the impact we have on public policy compared to 20 years ago and beyond. That’s particularly so if you research or teach topics that lay outside the ‘mainstream’ narrative of the day. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to teach or research alternatives – just that unless you are planning to publish in a “niche” journal – such as New Left Review – it generally pays to dress those ideas up in more mainstream clothes. Certainly I know of people who still teach Marx to undergrads in the context of economic thinkers. And I have a short unit on power and power relations in a postgrad module on technology strategy that I’m involved with at my own university. But Marx or Marxism no longer gets explicit mention in module titles (as far as I’m aware), and nor would socialism or anything ‘lefty’, as would have been acceptable up to the mid 1990s.
The impact of publishing in journals? I’ve also read the figures you quote about how many people ever read a journal article. And as academics we can check how many times an article has been cited – by other academics – so how far outside the academy our writings ever get is certainly open to question. But it is certainly true that some high profile academics – economists in particular – have, and continue, to act as cheerleaders for neo liberalism and are making a good living out of doing so. Indeed I currently have first hand experience of this as I’m working on a research project in Iceland: a country now paying the price for the ‘expert’ (but in reality dubious) advice given to it (formally in commissioned reports) by a number of economists who, to be honest, should now be paying for that in the way that the people of Iceland are. They are not, of course.
Anyway, thanks for yet another thought provoking blog. No doubt you’ll be adding one later on Monboit’s article on the NHS with a link to the excellent book by Colin Leys and Stewart Player (Leys is an academic 🙂
Ivan
I would add my comments were aimed specifically at Business Schools and accounting academics
I note all you say and agree with much – and would add that I do see people in other disciplines – including those scorned by the popular press – who can and do think and who can and do try to change things
But that’s not true of accounting.
Best
Richard
Excellent blog post Richard. I particularly liked the impassioned ending . As you say, the way in which the “academic” side of accountancy has ‘sold out’ is immensely harmful – and must be addressed. If we can’t even trust academics to question what’s going on, and they interpret their mission as being to prop up a failed ideology, then why are they still getting any government funding? There are clear parallels with the way in which US academic economists were subverted by Wall Street – arguing in favour of further deregulation when in the pocket of Wall Street firms, for example, thereby exacerbating the bubble and subsequent crash. See my blog post http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/ian-fraser/2011/02/24/inside-job-afflicted-by-conflicts-of-interest-economists-must-share-significant-blame-for-the-global-crisis (I hope this passes your peer review process!!).
Ian. A good blog from you on economists’ conflict of interest. I’ve come across the professional advice of some that you mention while working in Iceland and can say that their views persuaded many people that what was going on was acceptable and sustainable – because as academics they were seen as independent. This was particulary important to the general public in Iceland, as I understand it, because that came at a time when questions were beginning to be asked about the banking sector and their economic model in general. In that sense their interventions were directly implicated in the crash that then occured. Consequently there’s widely held view they should be held accountable for the duff views they gave.
Ivan
I think to suggest that those opinions were duff is being kind
Richard
Thanks Ivan. I agree that some of these economists should be held to account for basically duping people into thinking all was well with the pre-crash system, particularly in places like Iceland and Ireland. I am frankly astonished that the likes of Glenn Hubbard and Frederic Mishkin are still in their jobs. (BTW if you haven’t seen Inside Job, do watch the Mishkin clip. It’s hilarious!)
Ian. I’d forgotten about Inside Job. I’ve now made a note to watch it. Thanks.
Absolutely first rate post, Richard, on more than one level.
Richard, You appear to single out accounting academics as a special case, but you could equally apply this to all academics in this country, and for the same reasons.
This kind of unsupported comment only serves to weaken Richard Murphy’s case.
As a scientist, I am a professional sceptic. Basic scientific research drives debate about how the universe works. These debates have not been wholly kidnapped by any particular interest group.
The sceptic in me now thinks – “If you are so wrong about this, perhaps the case about the capture of academic accounting is also largely hot air?”
And if I do accept Richard Murphy’s case, “Where is the boundary between captured and free debate in academia? How can it be that academics at the edge of the accountancy field haven’t highlighted the problems they must see within?”
I do not see evidence that my allegation is universal.
The hegemony of thought within economics / accountancy is unusual. It’s ability tio block alternative thinking currently almost complete
I am not convinced that’s true everywhere
Spending your time writing for academic journals would ensure that you were ignored which I assume is what your interlocutor wants.
Research and development (R&D) is at the hub of academia … while “research” is crucial to the future of mankind, unfortunately “development” is in the hands of vested interest.
Take medicine as an example – and medicine and accountancy/tax research are closely connected in developing countries. Multi- national pharmaceutical companies have $billion dollar research budgets responsible for almost miraculous discoveries; unfortunately in an industry of profit motivated chemical innovation not all this “research” will be “developed” if it impacts on profit margins. One local GP is convinced that cures for several conditions are suppressed because they are either too cheap to turn a profit or conflict with more expensive and established treatments. In the same way that if ”research” discovered how to make petrol out of water and candle wax this would never be “developed” by the “industry”.
And academic accountants may also be subject to an unspoken “omerta” and anyone audacious enough to question the conspiracy to maintain opacity in accounting will be labelled as, err … “conspiracy theorists” and marginalised, ridiculed and (as you recently discovered) intimidated.
Then there is always the ICAEW who probably would have difficulty spelling the word “development” ….
By and large, the drug discovery industry does an outstanding job in delivering new treatments for diseases that cause huge distress and suffering. It is also primarily driven by individuals within these organisations trying to cure diseases as a primary personal goal.
It is possible to make a case that this effort could be ‘nationalised’ into publicly funded research centres. This might avoid some of the well documented failures of the pharmaceutical industry (overly high prices, downplaying contraindications, failing to invest in less commercial conditions etc).
However, I am completely unconvinced that a new system would be more successful at relieving human suffering.
Frying pan, fire…. In this case patients would be the one who suffered as a result of the conspiracy theorists. Far better to try to make the existing system work better, by aligning incentives and regulation.