Slí Eile: Today, Progressive Economy is two years old. 872 posts later this blog site is learning to walk and talk economics in the market place of ideas. Are you a regular user of this site? What do you think of it? Do you think that it has played a useful role in informing public debate?
Progressive Economy (PE) was set up an alternative forum for debate about ‘progressive economics’. In one way it competes with Irish Economy (IE); in another it complements it. Many people follow Irish Economy and it is cited frequently in blogosphere, the media and elsewhere. While academic economists post for Irish Economy, its readership and commentariat is far and wide and contains not a few critics of the ‘existing order of things’. The focus of IE tends to be a lot on banking and fiscal debt.
Progressive Economy is not defined by what it is not. It seeks to create a different space where the focus of topics and some of the underlying values and assumptions of those post to this site are different. The use of the term ‘progressive’ does not necessarily imply that the views of the mainstream of applied political economy are always regressive. But, sometimes they are because they start from false assumptions, unsubstantiated assertions and a questionable set of values (like we are not short of compassion but cash as if money was a value in itself apart from human labour and society). Many contributors to PE have identified and analysed various data sources that escape mainstream media debates and commentary. One of the services that PE can offer is a commentary on trends, distributions and comparisons in regard to employment, spending, taxation, income, wealth, debt etc Many who continue to post to this Site provide a useful sounding board and criticism of views. This is a vital part of democratic and civil debate to clarify ideas, test assumptions and suggest that there is more than one of conceptualising a problem and certainly more than one way of finding solutions.
So, what conclusions can be drawn from the last two years and what pointers for the next two years? I suggest that:
- The contribution base needs to be expanded while retaining the focus on economics
- More guest posts, ‘head-to-head’ discussions and cross-posting with other sites should be considered.
- Issues around job-creation and industry/services development need greater attention.
At the launch of PE on 23rd February 2009, former Director of TASC Paula Clancy wrote:
Economics has been described as the 'dismal science'. Economists are often stereotyped as conservative, wallowing in bad news, unfeeling and sometimes allied to powerful financial, economic circles and interests…..TASC believes that it is time to reclaim 'economics' by rediscovering the political, social and cultural in 'economics'. We assert that economics is not, and cannot be, neutral. ….A new Political Economy must address the fundamental choices, values and alternative possible ways forward that the traditional practice of 'economics' shies away from. For this reason, TASC has created progressive-economy@tasc to provide a public forum for economic debate.
3 comments:
Congratulations and many thanks to all involved. This has been, is and, I hope, will continue to be a valuable contribution to public debate.
However, I detect a reluctance to abandon tired and out-dated ideological baggage which hinders engagement with, and even repels, many citizens who would subscribe to progressive public policies.
This is particularly the case for those who adopt a liberal stance on most matters and have a prefence for moderate, effective, limited governance. Increasingly in the developed economies these citizens, in equal measure, are being repelled by doctrinaire, dogmatic aspects of the 'left-progressive' agenda and being recruited to support the Neocon's cunningly concealed but virulent agenda.
The failure of left-of-centre parties to reach out and to secure the support of these voters is dramatically illustrated in the continuous decline in Labour's poll-rating during the general election campaign and the apparent migration of these voters to FG.
left-of-centre parties need to adapt their policies to reach out to these voters (without losing their progressive values and ideals - as labour did in the UK). There is a solid democratic plurality in favour of progressive policies; all that is needed to the good sense and effort to secure it.
(Some evidence of this emerged in a recent internet debate in The Economist on the motion that 'the elites serve the masses'. (Despite its founding liberal principles of free trade, liberal democracy and the rule of law, The Economist, by virtue of its releince on sales in the US, is progressively becoming a Neocon propaganda rag.) Despite the best efforts of The Economist with previous article and reports in support of the motion, it was defeated 86% to 14%. A rational progressive majority exists in all human societies to defeat the Neocons and forces of unfettered capitalism. The challenge is to give it voice and vote.)
PE is a valuable source of information and analysis. If I have one criticism, it is that there tends to be overlap between its writers. I feel there is not enough attention given financial/monetary/banking issues. Of course, fiscal issues are highly relevant given our current plight, though I still feel disproportinate attention is given to them. For example, there seems to be a growing chorus of progressive voices questioning the value of peripheral countries staying in the Euro. Mark Weisbrot's contribution is especially noteworthy. Terrence McDonough raised the issue in a recent post. Michael Burke, with his experience working in this sector, could make a valuable contribution to this debate. Also noteworthy, is the absence of original suggestions on how to solve the banking crisis. Insofar as there is progressive analysis, it tends to be derivative, evaluating the merits or demerits of policy proposals emanating from other sources. Lastly, I would like to see more analysis of growth policies. Obviously, the immediate concern is the employment/fiscal crisis, however, employing more people does not necessarily make them more productive. Little attention is given to industrial policy, and what policies best harness FDI. Or, alternatively, what polcies will help Ireland develop its own industries. For example, Igor Shvets of Trinity's Physics Department has been proposing ways Ireland may develop its own energy sources. I feel Prionnsias Breathnach and David Jacobsen, who specialise MNCs and industrial policy, could contribute to these debates.
PE is a valuable source of information and analysis. If I have one criticism, it is that there tends to be overlap between its writers. I feel there is not enough attention given financial/monetary/banking issues. Of course, fiscal issues are highly relevant given our current plight, though I still feel disproportinate attention is given to them. For example, there seems to be a growing chorus of progressive voices questioning the value of peripheral countries staying in the Euro. Mark Weisbrot's contribution is especially noteworthy. Terrence McDonough raised the issue in a recent post. Michael Burke, with his experience working in this sector, could make a valuable contribution to this debate. Also noteworthy, is the absence of original suggestions on how to solve the banking crisis. Insofar as there is progressive analysis, it tends to be derivative, evaluating the merits or demerits of policy proposals emanating from other sources. Lastly, I would like to see more analysis of growth policies. Obviously, the immediate concern is the employment/fiscal crisis, however, employing more people does not necessarily make them more productive. Little attention is given to industrial policy, and what policies best harness FDI. Or, alternatively, what polcies will help Ireland develop its own industries. For example, Igor Shvets of Trinity's Physics Department has been proposing ways Ireland may develop its own energy sources. I feel Prionnsias Breathnach and David Jacobsen, who specialise MNCs and industrial policy, could contribute to these debates.
Post a Comment