Two comment columns have caught my attention in the last couple of days. The first is a comment in an article from an author for whom I do not always have much time She is Anne McElvoy editor of the Economist, who in a comment piece for the Guardian said:
Instability is built into this ragged new politics of spasms and twitches. “How cross are you?” is an easy question to pose. “What do you propose doing about it?” much harder. Where is the great Corbynite thinktank, pumping out big ideas?
The second was the swan song column of John Van Reenen as Director of the LSE's Centre for Economic Performance. In this he said (amongst much else worth reading):
It would certainly be a great thing if more academic economists were involved in talking to the public. Basic fallacies like thinking there is a fixed number of jobs, so immigration (and population growth for that matter) must be bad for unemployment are rampant. So more public engagement would certainly help. More support must be given to colleagues who help spread the economic news as there is a clear cost in time spent on public engagement versus time spent on other academic activities — research, teaching and admin.
I see the two pieces as related. As someone who has been engaged in a think tank way on the left and who is one of the few people to be credited with creating ideas for Corbyn I am acutely aware of the lack of others apparently doing the same thing. As someone who expects to be more engaged in academia in the future I wholeheartedly support John Van Reenan's view. But I would argue they are saying the same thing.
There is a crisis of confidence in elites, which is Anne McElvoy's main argument.
And the apparent contempt of those who are now the political elite for anything that looks like thinking is Van Reenan's theme.
But when the elite are both contemptuous of thinking and at the same time control the funding that permits what little professional thinking in subjects such as economics take place aren't we by definition we at a point where crisis is inevitable? The greatest reward for the academic has, for too long, been supplied by reinforcing the elites' view of itself. Maybe that was always the case. But when that view now disparages thinking what is left? Isn't it that this is the moment when the left has to take the risk of reclaiming intellectual innovation for social purposes?
In the last fifteen years I have seen too little of that. Tax justice, the living wage and the Green New Deal can mark up some successes. What else can, really?
Anne McElvoy is right: where are the think tanks on the left? Why is so much effort expended for so little output that I see making an impact?
And why are professional academics so loath to take part, even if they are on the left?
The need for new thinking has never been so great. But where is it coming from? To put it another way, what is the next tax justice that can become so obvious an idea that it has to be embraced? It's not obvious as yet. And I wish it was.
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:
I am not a big fan of Anne McElvoy.
The rag – sorry – the journal she works for is one of the very organs that pours scorn on most if not any alternative to neo-lib nirvana in the first place.
Her question to me seemed in line with most of her work – a sense of satisfaction with things as they are and a sense of superiority to go with it too.
She is basically saying that those who could produce an alternative are not up to it when she knows damn well that her and those like her would quickly extinguish any putative good ideas if they did come along. Has she been advocating your sensible alternatives at all? I’ve not seen her do so. And you know what – she wouldn’t either.
I also do not like the way she conducts herself about these serious issues – as though its all ‘terribly good fun’ – it’s almost a sport to her. I bet she’s well paid after all (as most are in order to ignore the truth) – and she ignores the misery it causes.
Sorry.
Reenen is spot on though.
I agree with you PSR – and said so
But sometimes you have to listen to the questions even those you do not agree with are asking
Honest
Yes you are right Richard – as only a man who could write ‘The Courageuous State’ and ‘The Joy of Tax’ could be (and ought to be).
“where are the think tanks on the left? ”
This seems in some ways obvious. If you generalise that the right are rich and the left poor, then the right can afford to fund reader has and lobbying to protect their own interests and further their own ends whereas the left doesn’t have he cash.
What’s more, I would assume that many of those with wealth on the left consider a more active use of their money (charity work directly trying to help people) more worthwhile than finding people to muse over those issues.
It has to be said that John McDonnell has probably done more than any politician probably ever to throw open economic discussion with both academia and the voter. So that is certainly progress.
The trouble is that whilst for both him and for Corbyn there seem to be lots of ‘democratic’ consultations and conversations, in spite of their best endeavours, they seem to come to no firm conclusions.
It looks as though it is another symptom of a failure of leadership with an inability to recognise that it may be good to talk, but afterwards it’s even better to make up your mind!
I think that is a claim that pushes your luck somewhat
The advisory panel has collapsed for a start
And a few meetings do not make a dialogue with the voter – especially when John said so little
Owen Jones has some interesting material in ‘The Establishment’ on why right leaning think tanks have been so successful and by definition why left leaning ones haven’t (with many examples of the outcomes in terms of policies). I think I’d be correct in summarising that as boiling down to successive governments only really being interested in hearing neoliberal inspired ideas. Consequently, there isn’t the demand, nor very many job opportunities in that sector of the think-tank world. It could be argued that that’s a chicken and egg situation of course, but perhaps now there seems to be an increasing appetite for progressive ideas maybe that’s the necessary catalyst for change?
On the academics and public engagement issue, well all I can say is that every year I get asked to complete a survey on public engagement, as do all academics, I assume, as this is related to some government metric or other. And I know I can set aside a certain number of days for public engagement activities in my annual workload plan. So that’s the theory. But in practice I suspect I’m one among many academics whose teaching workload is such that I hardly get time to do any research, so I’m afraid finding time to engage with the public – which I’d be more than happy to do – remains on my wish list. And with the Teaching Excellence Framework on the horizon, and thus another set of metrics that will further constrain everything we do in academia, I don’t see that situation improving at all.
But then again what governments say and what they actually want are two very different things. Thus, although successive governments have said plenty about “impact” and “public engagement” we know that the truth is that they really rather despise experts (or at least all those who don’t say what they want us to say). They would therefore much rather the public continue to gain their information – and for many people, their post-school education – from the likes of the mainstream (Tory) media, where the message – such as on climate change, running the nation’s finances as a “household’, and so on, can be so much more easily manipulated and controlled. I doubt anything will change on that score under our current government – with or without the influence of Corbyn’s Labour movement.
All entirely accepted Ivan
The situation you describe reminds me of the academics featured and criticised in Michael Moore’S film. Capitalism: A Love Story.
“where are the think tanks on the left? ”
Isn’t the question ‘Who will fund think tanks which are not neo-liberal?’
On the whole funding flows to bodies that are likely to support the aims of the donor. Since the majority of the wealth objects to any redistributive policy and wants government to stop getting in the way with their petty regulations (H&S/product safety/labour protection/etc) then where will the funding come from for alternatives?
I do sometimes wonder if it would be possible to crowd-fund something.