John Barry: Have just received a review copy of The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Micro-economics by Rod Hill and Tony Myatt http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/book.asp?bookdetail=4326. From a quick review it should be on all undergraduate economics courses in the spirit of pluralism in economic thinking. Some lovely quotes "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists" (Joan Robinson) and "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? The answer to this question can now be given with somewhat greater assurance than twenty years ago...It is 'no'" (Richard Easterlin).
It also includes a series of thought-provoking 'questions for your professor' throughout; such as "Why does the textbook suppose that democracy must end at the workplace door? In whose interest is it that economic democracy remain off the agenda?' and "The competitive labour markey model predicts that if a firm reduces its wage by one cent below the equilibrium its entire workforce will quit. Why don't we test this prediction?"
The book also includes a postscript on the global financial meltdown which as they put it "illustrates the importance of imperfect and assymmetrical information, externalities, limited rationality and inappropriate incentives. In particular, it illustrates the necessity of appropriate government regulation, and the ability of powerful business interests to change the rules of the game" .
Wish I had had this textbook when I was an ungraduate!
Showing posts with label John Barry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Barry. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Friday, 2 October 2009
Green New Deal - The Neo-Classical Empire strikes back
John Barry: Over at Irish Economy, Richard Tol has attacked the Comhar Green New Deal report. What I particularly enjoyed about it and found revealing was the evident display of self-confident 'expertise' and 'authority'.
To take some examples, Richard Tol opines that "Most experts reckon that the transition to a low-carbon economy will take 50 years (give or take a few decades)" - but sadly, we're not told which experts, or that there is a world of a difference between using reformist, orthodox economic tools to encourage the transition to a low carbon (a gentle greening of 'business as usual') and what ought to be done to secure energy security, detox from fossil fuels and combat climate change. The comfortable and comforting assumption which runs right through Richard Tol's analysis (and one of course shared by other orthodox economists) is that politics does not enter the equation and the most we can hope for is a 'market-led' transition to a low carbon economy.
Of course, not even all neo-classical economists shares this view - take Nicholas Stern's view on the economics of climate change. In a recent report, for the German Foreign Ministry, for the G20 summit, he stated that G20 members should “initiate and extend programmes that provide loans to home-owners and small and medium-sized enterprises for boosting energy efficiency in buildings”, and “undertake investments in electricity grid upgrades and extensions, public transportation, integrated freight transport systems and carbon dioxide pipelines for carbon capture and storage projects”. Failure to do so threatens global sustainable growth in his view. This report builds upon a previous report by the London School of Economics ' Grantham Institute for Climate Change the Environment - 'An Outline of the case for a 'Green' Stimulus', which based its analysis using the IMF's assessement that macro-economic stability and recovery required state stimulus packages, and provides empirical as well as theoretical evidence that spending is superior to tradition tax cuts [1][2]
Later in his post, without any supporting evidence, we are told "Green New Deal would raise the price of energy and keep labour taxes higher than needed, the economic recovery is slowed down and jobs are destroyed", but the point of any GND would be to shift taxes from labour to carbon emission - something, of course, outlined in the report from the Commission on Taxation recently. And the whole point of the GND is to jump-start this transition because it makes long-term economic, ecological and energy security sense.
Why I enjoyed this post so much, and why I'll be using it in teaching students about the ethical underpinnings of any theory of political economy, is the following: "I would argue that pension funds should provide pensions, and to that end they need to invest in whatever gives the highest risk-adjusted return, regardless of whether it is green or blue or yellow." - would that extend to investing in countries or companies that abuse human rights? use child labour? use slave labour? or engage in any number of 'race to the bottom' cost-saving measures which raise ethical objections? Neo-classical economics is as political and ethical as any other form of economics, to pretend it has a monopoly on what the economy, how we should conceptualise economics, best expressed in the way neo-classical economists think and assume that their conception of the economy is not only the only 'real' one, but sets the standard and indeed 'grammar' by which ALL other forms of political economy should be judged. Ideological hegemony or what?
Notes
[1] Hemming, R, Mahfouz, S, and A Schimmelpfennig (2002): ‘Fiscal policy and economic activity during recessions in advanced economies’ IMF Working Paper 02/87, May
[2] Hemming, R, Kell, M, and S Mahfouz (2002): ‘The effectiveness of fi scal policy in stimulating economic activity – a review of the literature’ IMF Working Paper 02/208, December
To take some examples, Richard Tol opines that "Most experts reckon that the transition to a low-carbon economy will take 50 years (give or take a few decades)" - but sadly, we're not told which experts, or that there is a world of a difference between using reformist, orthodox economic tools to encourage the transition to a low carbon (a gentle greening of 'business as usual') and what ought to be done to secure energy security, detox from fossil fuels and combat climate change. The comfortable and comforting assumption which runs right through Richard Tol's analysis (and one of course shared by other orthodox economists) is that politics does not enter the equation and the most we can hope for is a 'market-led' transition to a low carbon economy.
Of course, not even all neo-classical economists shares this view - take Nicholas Stern's view on the economics of climate change. In a recent report, for the German Foreign Ministry, for the G20 summit, he stated that G20 members should “initiate and extend programmes that provide loans to home-owners and small and medium-sized enterprises for boosting energy efficiency in buildings”, and “undertake investments in electricity grid upgrades and extensions, public transportation, integrated freight transport systems and carbon dioxide pipelines for carbon capture and storage projects”. Failure to do so threatens global sustainable growth in his view. This report builds upon a previous report by the London School of Economics ' Grantham Institute for Climate Change the Environment - 'An Outline of the case for a 'Green' Stimulus', which based its analysis using the IMF's assessement that macro-economic stability and recovery required state stimulus packages, and provides empirical as well as theoretical evidence that spending is superior to tradition tax cuts [1][2]
Later in his post, without any supporting evidence, we are told "Green New Deal would raise the price of energy and keep labour taxes higher than needed, the economic recovery is slowed down and jobs are destroyed", but the point of any GND would be to shift taxes from labour to carbon emission - something, of course, outlined in the report from the Commission on Taxation recently. And the whole point of the GND is to jump-start this transition because it makes long-term economic, ecological and energy security sense.
Why I enjoyed this post so much, and why I'll be using it in teaching students about the ethical underpinnings of any theory of political economy, is the following: "I would argue that pension funds should provide pensions, and to that end they need to invest in whatever gives the highest risk-adjusted return, regardless of whether it is green or blue or yellow." - would that extend to investing in countries or companies that abuse human rights? use child labour? use slave labour? or engage in any number of 'race to the bottom' cost-saving measures which raise ethical objections? Neo-classical economics is as political and ethical as any other form of economics, to pretend it has a monopoly on what the economy, how we should conceptualise economics, best expressed in the way neo-classical economists think and assume that their conception of the economy is not only the only 'real' one, but sets the standard and indeed 'grammar' by which ALL other forms of political economy should be judged. Ideological hegemony or what?
Notes
[1] Hemming, R, Mahfouz, S, and A Schimmelpfennig (2002): ‘Fiscal policy and economic activity during recessions in advanced economies’ IMF Working Paper 02/87, May
[2] Hemming, R, Kell, M, and S Mahfouz (2002): ‘The effectiveness of fi scal policy in stimulating economic activity – a review of the literature’ IMF Working Paper 02/208, December
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Northern Ireland review of economic policy
John Barry: To balance the focus of this blogsite on political and economic developments in the Republic of Ireland - here's one about Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, the Barnett review - Independent Review of Economic Policy (DETI and Invest NI) - - published yesterday, is weighty and provides much food for thought in terms of the economic challenges and opportunities for NI. However whether the NI executive (aka Sinn Fein and the DUP) will use it to create a new economic strategy or whether it will sink only time will tell (my bets are on the latter). Some of the main findings of the report - commissioned by the Department and Enterprise Trade and Investment - are outlined below.
While the report finds that Invest Northern Ireland has contributed to job creation and NI's overall economic performance, it confirms the views of those, like me, who have viewed NI's economic strategy as partly a 'race to the bottom' in terms of seeking low-wage and insecure service sector jobs. As the report puts it:
"When compared to other UK regions, NI has attracted a higher number of new foreign-owned investment projects and promoted a higher number of jobs per head of population. However, many of these jobs, particularly those in the service sector, offered wages below the private sector average (e.g. contact centres). Furthermore, a significant proportion of support was associated with safeguarding jobs in the manufacturing sector" (p.7).
While recognising that a lot of the policy drivers affecting economic performance lie outside the NI Executive, it also notes the lack of improvement in NI's productivity and sees R&D as a key driver of economic growth, which it views as - surprise, surprise - FDI attracting and export-led. One of the report's most striking recommendations - and one likely to cause perhaps most political upset within the NI executive - is the proposal for the creation of a single 'Department of the Economy' - (requiring the amalgamation of two existing Departments - DETI (which the DUP hold) and DEL (which the UUP hold)). Re-carving political power within the 4 party executive - especially given the increasing hostility betwene the DUP and UUP - is not politically feasible, even though it make make economic and policy sense (but then when did the latter have anything to do with how the NI executive operates?!).
Another, unsurprising finding is that Universities should support STEM and 'Innovation relevant' subjects more (which in the current financial constext facing Universities in NI means less 'non-economic' subjects, and further increasing the trend towards viewing the primary role of University as providing skills for the economy), and create more industry-university innovation links. However, the report also suggests the creation of: "A new institution for commercially-oriented research should be explored in NI, along the lines pioneered by the successful VTT institute in Finland. The institution should be outside the University system and not subject to the constraints of the Research Excellence Framework (REF)" (p.10). So, speaking as an academic, the authors of the report either thought universities were not deemed to be up to the task, or were inappropriate, or that it was accepted that there is some scope (just) and rationale for universities to also engage in non-economic research and teaching. If the latter - how big of them!
There is mention of the 'Green New Deal' (and indeed support for the social economy) for NI but this is not seen as a central plank for economic recovery. Here the report echoes the short-sightedness of the Matrix report - http://www.matrix-ni.org/ which likewise viewed a green, low-carbon economic strategy as something that was of future, but not of immediate relevance to the regional economy in NI.
It views the Green New Deal not as a distinct, innovation-led strategy to provide jobs,enhance energy security and begin the process of putting Northern Ireland on a 'low carbon' path, but as something which merely contributes to 'energy saving and conservation' (p.11) as part of the 2008 Strategic Energy Framework. Sadly, this indicates to me the authors of the report did not either read what the GND is about and what they possibilities are for a GND in NI, or did and decided rather to present a conventional 'business as usual' economic analysis and set of recommendations.
While the report does outline some good ideas, provides a wealth of information, data and critical analysis of the NI exeutive's economic policy, it is regretable for a report that focuses on and arguges for the centrality of 'Innovation', that it contains precious little innovative economic thinking.
In Northern Ireland, the Barnett review - Independent Review of Economic Policy (DETI and Invest NI) - - published yesterday, is weighty and provides much food for thought in terms of the economic challenges and opportunities for NI. However whether the NI executive (aka Sinn Fein and the DUP) will use it to create a new economic strategy or whether it will sink only time will tell (my bets are on the latter). Some of the main findings of the report - commissioned by the Department and Enterprise Trade and Investment - are outlined below.
While the report finds that Invest Northern Ireland has contributed to job creation and NI's overall economic performance, it confirms the views of those, like me, who have viewed NI's economic strategy as partly a 'race to the bottom' in terms of seeking low-wage and insecure service sector jobs. As the report puts it:
"When compared to other UK regions, NI has attracted a higher number of new foreign-owned investment projects and promoted a higher number of jobs per head of population. However, many of these jobs, particularly those in the service sector, offered wages below the private sector average (e.g. contact centres). Furthermore, a significant proportion of support was associated with safeguarding jobs in the manufacturing sector" (p.7).
While recognising that a lot of the policy drivers affecting economic performance lie outside the NI Executive, it also notes the lack of improvement in NI's productivity and sees R&D as a key driver of economic growth, which it views as - surprise, surprise - FDI attracting and export-led. One of the report's most striking recommendations - and one likely to cause perhaps most political upset within the NI executive - is the proposal for the creation of a single 'Department of the Economy' - (requiring the amalgamation of two existing Departments - DETI (which the DUP hold) and DEL (which the UUP hold)). Re-carving political power within the 4 party executive - especially given the increasing hostility betwene the DUP and UUP - is not politically feasible, even though it make make economic and policy sense (but then when did the latter have anything to do with how the NI executive operates?!).
Another, unsurprising finding is that Universities should support STEM and 'Innovation relevant' subjects more (which in the current financial constext facing Universities in NI means less 'non-economic' subjects, and further increasing the trend towards viewing the primary role of University as providing skills for the economy), and create more industry-university innovation links. However, the report also suggests the creation of: "A new institution for commercially-oriented research should be explored in NI, along the lines pioneered by the successful VTT institute in Finland. The institution should be outside the University system and not subject to the constraints of the Research Excellence Framework (REF)" (p.10). So, speaking as an academic, the authors of the report either thought universities were not deemed to be up to the task, or were inappropriate, or that it was accepted that there is some scope (just) and rationale for universities to also engage in non-economic research and teaching. If the latter - how big of them!
There is mention of the 'Green New Deal' (and indeed support for the social economy) for NI but this is not seen as a central plank for economic recovery. Here the report echoes the short-sightedness of the Matrix report - http://www.matrix-ni.org/ which likewise viewed a green, low-carbon economic strategy as something that was of future, but not of immediate relevance to the regional economy in NI.
It views the Green New Deal not as a distinct, innovation-led strategy to provide jobs,enhance energy security and begin the process of putting Northern Ireland on a 'low carbon' path, but as something which merely contributes to 'energy saving and conservation' (p.11) as part of the 2008 Strategic Energy Framework. Sadly, this indicates to me the authors of the report did not either read what the GND is about and what they possibilities are for a GND in NI, or did and decided rather to present a conventional 'business as usual' economic analysis and set of recommendations.
While the report does outline some good ideas, provides a wealth of information, data and critical analysis of the NI exeutive's economic policy, it is regretable for a report that focuses on and arguges for the centrality of 'Innovation', that it contains precious little innovative economic thinking.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Carbon taxes - not 'just another tax' according to Commission
John Barry: This post is a very quick ‘cut and paste’ pulling together some of the main carbon and environmental related aspects of today’s Report, which will require more analysis in the coming weeks.
The Commission’s recommendation that a Carbon Tax be imposed (p.28) is on many levels to be welcomed, and is clear evidence of the influence of the Greens in government – since this was part of the 2007 agreed programme for Government between Fianna Fail and the Green Party. While there may be some debate as to whether the suggested level (€20 per tonne, p.342) is sufficiently high to encourage a shift away from carbon-intensive energy, heating and transport activities, there is at the very least in the report a clear beginning heralding long-overdue environmental tax reform in Ireland. It is a moot question as to whether now, given the economic recession, is the time to introduce a carbon tax.
It is particularly welcome that the potential adverse knock-on effects of such a tax on the most vulnerable members of society are explicitly recognised. As the report puts it, “Imposing a tax on the leading greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) will incentivise the action needed in ways that leave the response up to the emitter and that reflect the polluter pays principle – in essence those who emit more pay more. We also recommend that specific arrangements be put in place to ensure that those who experience energy poverty will be fully protected from the impacts in terms of price rises” (p.2, also p.330). This sensitivity to the unequal distributional impacts of a carbon tax is to be welcomed.
The commission recommends the hypothecation of the carbon tax (in keeping with recommendations from research and other carbon taxes). “We recommend that carbon tax revenue should be used, in the first instance, to combat fuel poverty. The overall effects of the carbon tax on vulnerable households should be appraised to ensure that such households (urban and rural) are cushioned from the effects of the tax.” (p.367). This explicit hypothecation of taxes ensures the revenues raised from a carbon tax do not simply disappear into the black hole of general taxation (which could undermine any public support for such a measure) – a key component of the commission’s concern that the carbon tax not be viewed as simply another tax, but one with behavioural effects at the individual level. As the Commission puts it, a carbon tax “should be visible at the point of final consumption, to help ensure that behavioural change aspects are maximized and it is not seen as ‘just another tax’.” (p.12). Another implication (though not explicitly stated in the report) is that a carbon tax signals a shift towards a low carbon economy. The commission rightly prioritises ‘energy efficiency’ as the main focus of fuel poverty efforts, given that this is often the best value for money and ‘bang for your buck’ in terms of combating fuel poverty as well as addition benefits in terms of potential job creation, something which dovetails with the arguments for a ‘Green New Deal’discussed in previous posts.
The Commission, in part in keeping with the Smart Economy document from last December, is keen to be seen to be promoting the ‘Green Economy’ (Part 9 of the report ‘Tax and the Environment’), though oddly there is only one cross-reference to the Smart Economy document in the report (and that in relation to innovation, rather than the Green Economy). Another welcome feature of the report is the recognition that the introduction of a carbon tax is within the context of broadening the tax base, rather than imposing new taxes, and in particular it should lessen the burden taxation on labour (p.73). In the words of the Commission: “Broadening the base by introducing an annual property tax and a carbon tax is generally better for Irish economic growth than increasing rates of income tax.” (p.77).
In relation to transport emissions, the Commission states “We support the introduction of fiscal measures aimed at reducing car use,” (p.361), given that transport emissions from cars are the fastest growing component of Irish CO2 emissions. Their proposals include: VRT exemption for electric vehicles; workplace parking levies; tax-exempt cycle to work schemes where cycles are treated as tax-exempt benefits in kind, road pricing and congestion charging.
Perhaps we are witnessing the slow beginnings of a shift in our taxation system – where the state taxes 'bads' such as pollution and not 'goods' such as income and employment. As the report puts it “A broad programme of environmental tax reform would shift the tax burden from ‘goods’ such as employment, to ‘bads’ such as pollution”. (p.331).
A final question is whether such environmental tax reform will be enough for the Greens in government, in the light of NAMA and the prospect of an upcoming savage budget?
The Commission’s recommendation that a Carbon Tax be imposed (p.28) is on many levels to be welcomed, and is clear evidence of the influence of the Greens in government – since this was part of the 2007 agreed programme for Government between Fianna Fail and the Green Party. While there may be some debate as to whether the suggested level (€20 per tonne, p.342) is sufficiently high to encourage a shift away from carbon-intensive energy, heating and transport activities, there is at the very least in the report a clear beginning heralding long-overdue environmental tax reform in Ireland. It is a moot question as to whether now, given the economic recession, is the time to introduce a carbon tax.
It is particularly welcome that the potential adverse knock-on effects of such a tax on the most vulnerable members of society are explicitly recognised. As the report puts it, “Imposing a tax on the leading greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) will incentivise the action needed in ways that leave the response up to the emitter and that reflect the polluter pays principle – in essence those who emit more pay more. We also recommend that specific arrangements be put in place to ensure that those who experience energy poverty will be fully protected from the impacts in terms of price rises” (p.2, also p.330). This sensitivity to the unequal distributional impacts of a carbon tax is to be welcomed.
The commission recommends the hypothecation of the carbon tax (in keeping with recommendations from research and other carbon taxes). “We recommend that carbon tax revenue should be used, in the first instance, to combat fuel poverty. The overall effects of the carbon tax on vulnerable households should be appraised to ensure that such households (urban and rural) are cushioned from the effects of the tax.” (p.367). This explicit hypothecation of taxes ensures the revenues raised from a carbon tax do not simply disappear into the black hole of general taxation (which could undermine any public support for such a measure) – a key component of the commission’s concern that the carbon tax not be viewed as simply another tax, but one with behavioural effects at the individual level. As the Commission puts it, a carbon tax “should be visible at the point of final consumption, to help ensure that behavioural change aspects are maximized and it is not seen as ‘just another tax’.” (p.12). Another implication (though not explicitly stated in the report) is that a carbon tax signals a shift towards a low carbon economy. The commission rightly prioritises ‘energy efficiency’ as the main focus of fuel poverty efforts, given that this is often the best value for money and ‘bang for your buck’ in terms of combating fuel poverty as well as addition benefits in terms of potential job creation, something which dovetails with the arguments for a ‘Green New Deal’discussed in previous posts.
The Commission, in part in keeping with the Smart Economy document from last December, is keen to be seen to be promoting the ‘Green Economy’ (Part 9 of the report ‘Tax and the Environment’), though oddly there is only one cross-reference to the Smart Economy document in the report (and that in relation to innovation, rather than the Green Economy). Another welcome feature of the report is the recognition that the introduction of a carbon tax is within the context of broadening the tax base, rather than imposing new taxes, and in particular it should lessen the burden taxation on labour (p.73). In the words of the Commission: “Broadening the base by introducing an annual property tax and a carbon tax is generally better for Irish economic growth than increasing rates of income tax.” (p.77).
In relation to transport emissions, the Commission states “We support the introduction of fiscal measures aimed at reducing car use,” (p.361), given that transport emissions from cars are the fastest growing component of Irish CO2 emissions. Their proposals include: VRT exemption for electric vehicles; workplace parking levies; tax-exempt cycle to work schemes where cycles are treated as tax-exempt benefits in kind, road pricing and congestion charging.
Perhaps we are witnessing the slow beginnings of a shift in our taxation system – where the state taxes 'bads' such as pollution and not 'goods' such as income and employment. As the report puts it “A broad programme of environmental tax reform would shift the tax burden from ‘goods’ such as employment, to ‘bads’ such as pollution”. (p.331).
A final question is whether such environmental tax reform will be enough for the Greens in government, in the light of NAMA and the prospect of an upcoming savage budget?
Monday, 29 June 2009
The Pro-Nuclear bias of the Irish Academy of Engineers review of Irish Energy Policy
John Barry: The Irish Academy of Engineers Review of Ireland's Energy in the Context of a Changing Economy has been discussed over on irisheconomy.ie. I was amused to see in the report itself lots of references to the need for non-ideological and 'evidence based' science to underpin energy decisions in Ireland in more recessionary times. I was amused in that looking at the expert panel there are not one, but two 'ideologically' committed pro-nuclear advocates, which rather em.. undermines the 'non-ideological' 'evidence base' for the report's conclusion that, guess what, Ireland needs to scale back renewables and promote nuclear! One of the recommendations of the Review is that the government, "Support the consideration of all feasible mainstream technology options with long term potential and remove inappropriate constaints such as the legislative barrier against nuclear generation." That both Ed Walsh (former president of University of Limerick and well-know pro-nuclear and climate change sceptic) and Frank Turvey (founder of BENE - Better Environment through Nnclear Energy - though of course not listed as such in the report) were part of the expert group which produced the report does weaken its claims of objectivity. In fact, I've nothing against ideologically motivated debates about energy and technology - anyone who thinks one can seperate the two are fooling themselves.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Guardian article on Green New Deal for Ireland
John Barry: Larry Elliott, the Guardian's Business editor, has just written this article 'Emerald Isle plots green revolution', outlining a possible Green New Deal path for the Irish economy out of the recession and into the beginning of the transition to a low carbon, green economic path.
In this article, Elliott notes that on the basis of interviews with politicians and policymakers he has had, that "Ireland appears quite keen to act as Europe's guinea pig for the green new deal concept, and is likely to reap a considerable dividend as a result" and that "the Celtic Tiger period of the 1990s provided Ireland with a core of hi-tech expertise in sectors such as IT, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. The intention is to use this strong industrial platform as the springboard for a green manufacturing revolution."
His argument is similar to the one I posted here a couple of weeks ago, but of course what we need alongside or following such 'big picture' macro-economic strategies are more detailed policies about how to make it happen. Nevertheless, it's clear the Green New Deal does capture something of the economic thinking we need to get out of this current mess....
In this article, Elliott notes that on the basis of interviews with politicians and policymakers he has had, that "Ireland appears quite keen to act as Europe's guinea pig for the green new deal concept, and is likely to reap a considerable dividend as a result" and that "the Celtic Tiger period of the 1990s provided Ireland with a core of hi-tech expertise in sectors such as IT, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. The intention is to use this strong industrial platform as the springboard for a green manufacturing revolution."
His argument is similar to the one I posted here a couple of weeks ago, but of course what we need alongside or following such 'big picture' macro-economic strategies are more detailed policies about how to make it happen. Nevertheless, it's clear the Green New Deal does capture something of the economic thinking we need to get out of this current mess....
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Making the case for pluralism in economic thinking
John Barry: After writing a post asking Where's our 'Green' Whitaker?, I was reflecting on the relationship between the imperative for orthodox economic growth (and the conventional neo-classical economic theory and thinking which accompanies it) and sustainability, (in)equality and well-being.
I'll begin by citing Thomas Friedman, once the cheerleader for unfettered neoliberal globalisation, who has recently become a 'proto- green' (at least from an economic perspective). In an extremely interesting op ed piece for the New York Times in March he states:
"Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: ‘No more’.”
Welcome to the party, Thomas. Us greens have been saying as much for at least four decades.
Couple that with two excellent discussions this week - one by John Woods, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, and another by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett – both of which spoke to the same key issue, namely that we have the empirical evidence that economic growth is not just ecologically unsustainable (i.e. not compatible with 'one planet living') but also needs inequality which undermines general well-being in society.
John Woods presented a summary, and outlined the implications for Northern Ireland, of Tim Jackson (Economics commissioner of the UK's Sustainable development Commission) and his recent SDC publication Prosperity without Growth http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914. John's talk and Tim's argument is, basically, that what the green movement has been saying for decades is true: beyond a certain point, economic growth does not only not add much to general and average well-being but, through positional competition, status competition and 'defensive' consumption, actually undermines human well-being. Here the real challenge is how to design public policy and especially macro-economic policy which aims to enhance human flourishing rather than a narrow focus on one means to flourishing i.e. conventional economic growth.
In the excellent discussion which followed John's talk, it was clear that the dominance of the discourse and myth of 'economic growth' is one of the main reasons for people to misunderstood greens and others who question 'growth'. The issue seems to be that many people cannot but view a non-growth argument as anything but 'bad', whereas the real issue is to separate out growth from 'prosperity' (as Jackson does), 'flourishing' (after Sen) or in my own work 'economic and social security', or to simply draw a distinction between economic growth and well-being. The evidence behind Jackson's report is pretty compelling, drawing on decades of research in economics, behavioural economics, psychology and cultural studies, all of which show that growth after a threshold does not appreciably add to average well-being (the infamous 'crocodile graph', is illustrative here demonstrating rising GNP over decades coupled with well-being flatlining since around 1960).
Wilkinson and Pickett's talk was also robust in its empirical evidence. They were talking about their new book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level and presented an impressive range of statistical and cross-country analysis which shows the strong correlation between inequality and a range of issues from obesity, lack of trust, crime, imprisonment, mental health. What I found particularly striking was their evidence that inequality does not simply negatively affect the least well off: in fact, almost everyone does less well the more unequal the society.
So, the upshot? Well... green critiques of economic growth now have a firmer evidence base, the need for more redistributive economic policies is apparent, the creation of less unequal societies not only is inextricably linked to challenging economic growth (i.e. if you are an egalitarian or on the left, you should be in alliance with greens), and what is needed above all is more pluralism in economic thinking. What does public policy look like when it’s free from the imperative of economic growth, competitiveness and all the other guff of 'there is no alternative' economic thinking, and what does public policy look like when its aimed at directly improving quality of life, human flourishing rather than economic growth?
I'll begin by citing Thomas Friedman, once the cheerleader for unfettered neoliberal globalisation, who has recently become a 'proto- green' (at least from an economic perspective). In an extremely interesting op ed piece for the New York Times in March he states:
"Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: ‘No more’.”
Welcome to the party, Thomas. Us greens have been saying as much for at least four decades.
Couple that with two excellent discussions this week - one by John Woods, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, and another by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett – both of which spoke to the same key issue, namely that we have the empirical evidence that economic growth is not just ecologically unsustainable (i.e. not compatible with 'one planet living') but also needs inequality which undermines general well-being in society.
John Woods presented a summary, and outlined the implications for Northern Ireland, of Tim Jackson (Economics commissioner of the UK's Sustainable development Commission) and his recent SDC publication Prosperity without Growth http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914. John's talk and Tim's argument is, basically, that what the green movement has been saying for decades is true: beyond a certain point, economic growth does not only not add much to general and average well-being but, through positional competition, status competition and 'defensive' consumption, actually undermines human well-being. Here the real challenge is how to design public policy and especially macro-economic policy which aims to enhance human flourishing rather than a narrow focus on one means to flourishing i.e. conventional economic growth.
In the excellent discussion which followed John's talk, it was clear that the dominance of the discourse and myth of 'economic growth' is one of the main reasons for people to misunderstood greens and others who question 'growth'. The issue seems to be that many people cannot but view a non-growth argument as anything but 'bad', whereas the real issue is to separate out growth from 'prosperity' (as Jackson does), 'flourishing' (after Sen) or in my own work 'economic and social security', or to simply draw a distinction between economic growth and well-being. The evidence behind Jackson's report is pretty compelling, drawing on decades of research in economics, behavioural economics, psychology and cultural studies, all of which show that growth after a threshold does not appreciably add to average well-being (the infamous 'crocodile graph', is illustrative here demonstrating rising GNP over decades coupled with well-being flatlining since around 1960).
Wilkinson and Pickett's talk was also robust in its empirical evidence. They were talking about their new book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level and presented an impressive range of statistical and cross-country analysis which shows the strong correlation between inequality and a range of issues from obesity, lack of trust, crime, imprisonment, mental health. What I found particularly striking was their evidence that inequality does not simply negatively affect the least well off: in fact, almost everyone does less well the more unequal the society.
So, the upshot? Well... green critiques of economic growth now have a firmer evidence base, the need for more redistributive economic policies is apparent, the creation of less unequal societies not only is inextricably linked to challenging economic growth (i.e. if you are an egalitarian or on the left, you should be in alliance with greens), and what is needed above all is more pluralism in economic thinking. What does public policy look like when it’s free from the imperative of economic growth, competitiveness and all the other guff of 'there is no alternative' economic thinking, and what does public policy look like when its aimed at directly improving quality of life, human flourishing rather than economic growth?
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Where's our 'Green' Whitaker?
John Barry: In the context of the severe crisis Ireland faces – which for me goes beyond the current economic/financial crisis but should be viewed as a ‘triple crunch’ – to also include climate change and energy insecurity - it is perhaps timely to ask whether we need a new T.K. Whitaker? I’ve been thinking for a while about whether we need a ‘Green’ Whitaker to show leadership and vision on charting a way of out the current crises. Just as Whitaker penned Economic Development in 1958 which signalled a step change in Irish economic/industrial policy, where is the equivalent today to produce a Sustainable Development policy document? Just as the need for Ireland to promote economic growth, develop and industrial base and begin the shift from a largely inward, partly autarkic and agricultural economy were some of the headline objectives and context of the 1958 report and Programme, surely we are in need today of similar bold, innovative and mould-breaking policy thinking?
Whereas Whitaker’s vision was for a more internationalised, open, competitive industrialised Ireland, what is the vision, or visions, for today? My own preferred indication lies in a Green New Deal –– elements of which one can find in the Building Ireland’s Smart Economy document drafted by Cowen’s chief economic advisor, Peter Clinch (an environmental economist interestingly…), last December – http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2008/Building_Ireland’s_Smart_Economy.html . While I think a discussion of that document – and whether it does contain a commitment to a ‘Green New Deal’ and marks a step-change in official economic thinking – is best left for another post, I am more interested in what people think about the need for a ‘Green’ Whitaker. In focusing on Whitaker, I am less interested in the equivalent detail of what we need today, than in the issues of intellectual leadership, policy innovation and breaking with previous economic policy.
For it sadly seems to me that there is a desperation within business, most academics and especially the senior policy-making community in Ireland, to cling onto ‘business as usual’, to hope and pray that the current economic crisis will pass and that the only serious issue is how long we have to ride out the storm till it passes and we can go back to where we were. Even Thomas Friedman (once chief cheer-leader for neo-liberal globalisation and author of books popularising neo-liberal globalisation such as The World is Flat http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat and The Lexus and the Olive Tree http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-lexus-and-the-olive-tree has recognised that perhaps the current crises represent the end of an unthinking commitment to orthodox economic growth at any cost. As he puts it in a piece for the New York in March:
“Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html
This clinging to ‘business as usual’ is a recipe for disaster, where a poverty of imagination and using this crisis to begin our over-due economic detox from carbon, utilising our indigenous sources of renewable energy and develop some fresh thinking about what Ireland’s economic model of development should be in the 21st century, will ensure we miss this once in a generation opportunity, as Whitaker did, to outline a different path and vision for Ireland. So, if there is no ‘Green Whitaker’, surely we need to find one? And fast.
Whereas Whitaker’s vision was for a more internationalised, open, competitive industrialised Ireland, what is the vision, or visions, for today? My own preferred indication lies in a Green New Deal –– elements of which one can find in the Building Ireland’s Smart Economy document drafted by Cowen’s chief economic advisor, Peter Clinch (an environmental economist interestingly…), last December – http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2008/Building_Ireland’s_Smart_Economy.html . While I think a discussion of that document – and whether it does contain a commitment to a ‘Green New Deal’ and marks a step-change in official economic thinking – is best left for another post, I am more interested in what people think about the need for a ‘Green’ Whitaker. In focusing on Whitaker, I am less interested in the equivalent detail of what we need today, than in the issues of intellectual leadership, policy innovation and breaking with previous economic policy.
For it sadly seems to me that there is a desperation within business, most academics and especially the senior policy-making community in Ireland, to cling onto ‘business as usual’, to hope and pray that the current economic crisis will pass and that the only serious issue is how long we have to ride out the storm till it passes and we can go back to where we were. Even Thomas Friedman (once chief cheer-leader for neo-liberal globalisation and author of books popularising neo-liberal globalisation such as The World is Flat http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat and The Lexus and the Olive Tree http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-lexus-and-the-olive-tree has recognised that perhaps the current crises represent the end of an unthinking commitment to orthodox economic growth at any cost. As he puts it in a piece for the New York in March:
“Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html
This clinging to ‘business as usual’ is a recipe for disaster, where a poverty of imagination and using this crisis to begin our over-due economic detox from carbon, utilising our indigenous sources of renewable energy and develop some fresh thinking about what Ireland’s economic model of development should be in the 21st century, will ensure we miss this once in a generation opportunity, as Whitaker did, to outline a different path and vision for Ireland. So, if there is no ‘Green Whitaker’, surely we need to find one? And fast.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Post-Celtic-Tiger errata
John Barry: Have just read Showcasing Globalisation?: The Political Economy of the Irish Republic by Nicola Jo-Anne Smith. It’s a good source of empirical data and debates about the Irish economy in terms of whether it really is 'globalised' or merely 'internationalised' and actually concentrated in terms of trade to a couple of countries - US and the UK in particular. It’s also a rather infuriating read - lots of 'on the one hand...but on the other...' and frustratingly fails to come down with any analytically insightful or normatively interesting positions.
She contests that Ireland is a 'competition state' (Irish-style), as maintained by critics of the neo-liberal Celtic Tiger model such as Peadar Kirby or Denis O'Hearn, yet does not outline what a 'competition state' is and how it differs from a 'welfare' or 'developmental' one. The book also offers the most torturous account of the persistence of inequality in Ireland, while maintaining this is not a major issue given the rise in absolute wages for most and the provision of a (bare and increasingly thread-bare) social safety net. But perhaps most frustrating of all, and which to my mind, really undermines the book's contribution, there is no discussion of the dynamics of globalised capitalism or indeed the character of Irish capitalism. It is as if one can blithely discuss 'globalisation' without mentioning capitalism!
Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, it is a good start to the debate about the Celtic Tiger, and more importantly the post-Celtic Tiger situation, not least in Smith's argument that both the 'Whittaker moment' in the 1950s (which heralded the end of De Valera-style protectionism) and the social partnership model of the late 1980s (of the commonly held features which explains the Celtic Tiger 'take off') were borne out of crisis.
Where is our 'green Whittaker now' and is there a green version of social partnership and the need to respond to the current economic (and growing political) crisis by restructuring the state, economy and civil society in Ireland?
She contests that Ireland is a 'competition state' (Irish-style), as maintained by critics of the neo-liberal Celtic Tiger model such as Peadar Kirby or Denis O'Hearn, yet does not outline what a 'competition state' is and how it differs from a 'welfare' or 'developmental' one. The book also offers the most torturous account of the persistence of inequality in Ireland, while maintaining this is not a major issue given the rise in absolute wages for most and the provision of a (bare and increasingly thread-bare) social safety net. But perhaps most frustrating of all, and which to my mind, really undermines the book's contribution, there is no discussion of the dynamics of globalised capitalism or indeed the character of Irish capitalism. It is as if one can blithely discuss 'globalisation' without mentioning capitalism!
Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, it is a good start to the debate about the Celtic Tiger, and more importantly the post-Celtic Tiger situation, not least in Smith's argument that both the 'Whittaker moment' in the 1950s (which heralded the end of De Valera-style protectionism) and the social partnership model of the late 1980s (of the commonly held features which explains the Celtic Tiger 'take off') were borne out of crisis.
Where is our 'green Whittaker now' and is there a green version of social partnership and the need to respond to the current economic (and growing political) crisis by restructuring the state, economy and civil society in Ireland?
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Guest Post: Response to Richard Tol on 'Green New Deal'
John Barry: Richard Tol, over at Irish Economy, has an ‘interesting’ take on one of the components of a Green New Deal for Ireland.
Focusing on the conventional economics for recycling he (and others who have responded to his post) use this one aspect of a ‘Green economy’, or the Green New Deal now promoted, to dismiss not only the Greens in government but the idea that somehow the greening of the economy as outlined in a Green New deal is ‘not economic’. Only by conveniently (and standardly in neo-classical economic thinking) excluding both the social and ecological ‘bottom lines’ does this even begin to stack up. With thousands losing jobs in Ireland and a long established (though largely localised) ‘social economy’ recycling industry, are we to simply dismiss the prospect of creating ‘green collar’ jobs here in the recycling industry? Especially if we limit or eradicate the market distorting effects of a rush towards incineration (few jobs, high capital cost and environmental/health costs) there are jobs to be created in an indigenous recycling industry. Why does Richard assume recycling in Ireland has to be capital and energy intensive?
How do Richard and his buddies explain the fact that according to a recent report - HSBC’s Climate Change research ‘A Climate for recovery’ - China, India, South Korea as well as the US are spending so much of their stimulus packages on the environmental goods and services sector? South Korea is spending almost 80% of its entire package on the green economy and climate change sector, while China is spending around 33%. And guess what, they are not all ramping themselves up for the deluge of recylates from Ireland and Europe – but a serious bid for first mover status in an emerging market and the next industrial revolution of the inevitable shift to a sustainable, low carbon economy. According to HSBC, Europe is seriously lagging behind.
But then, trapped in the neoclassical, ‘business as usual’ economic logic, what could one expect from Richard and fellow-travellers? The real ambition for a green economy is to get rid of the notion of waste completely from the production and consumption process, as promoted by the ‘zero waste’ strategy now endorsed by New Zealand and long championed by ecological economists such as Robin Murray (Creating Wealth from Waste).
I particularly enjoyed the exchange between Richard Tol and Brian Lucey to the effect that the greening of the economy is driven by ideological concerns (i.e. the Greens in coalition) and not by ‘economics’ – as if the neo-classical economic position espoused by both Richard and Brian is not itself ideological! Precious! Perhaps both would like to contribute to the recently launched campaign to remove ‘toxic economic textbooks’ from undergraduate economics courses - that is, remove the dominance of the neo-clasical model and allow some genuine debate and pluralism within economics.
The current economic meltdown is not the result of natural causes or human conspiracy, but because society at all levels became infected with false beliefs regarding the nature of economic reality. And the primary sources of this infection are the “neoclassical” or “mainstream” textbooks long used in introductory economics courses in universities throughout the world”
The Greens, just like Richard and Brian, are engaged in political economy – economics driven by underlying political values – to think that a neo-classical economic position is somehow ‘value free’, ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’ is not only just plain wrong but disingenuous. ALL economic proposals are ideological, period. So let’s have a grown-up debate about political economy - not this nonsense that somehow there is a ‘scientific’ and objective position from which we can analyse and make proposals about the economy.
And, as an afterthought, have any of these neo-classical economists thought of the impact of the massive carbon subsidies (vastly greater than the 13 million euro being talked about here for the stimulation of an indigenous recycling industry) which have locked us into a carbon dependent infrastructure for decades to come? A Green New Deal and the creation of a green, low carbon economy is not simply about government investment, but also the removal of perverse carbon subsidies in order to incentivise and encourage public and market actors. But then why let a good argument get in the way of cheap political and ideological-based point scoring?
Focusing on the conventional economics for recycling he (and others who have responded to his post) use this one aspect of a ‘Green economy’, or the Green New Deal now promoted, to dismiss not only the Greens in government but the idea that somehow the greening of the economy as outlined in a Green New deal is ‘not economic’. Only by conveniently (and standardly in neo-classical economic thinking) excluding both the social and ecological ‘bottom lines’ does this even begin to stack up. With thousands losing jobs in Ireland and a long established (though largely localised) ‘social economy’ recycling industry, are we to simply dismiss the prospect of creating ‘green collar’ jobs here in the recycling industry? Especially if we limit or eradicate the market distorting effects of a rush towards incineration (few jobs, high capital cost and environmental/health costs) there are jobs to be created in an indigenous recycling industry. Why does Richard assume recycling in Ireland has to be capital and energy intensive?
How do Richard and his buddies explain the fact that according to a recent report - HSBC’s Climate Change research ‘A Climate for recovery’ - China, India, South Korea as well as the US are spending so much of their stimulus packages on the environmental goods and services sector? South Korea is spending almost 80% of its entire package on the green economy and climate change sector, while China is spending around 33%. And guess what, they are not all ramping themselves up for the deluge of recylates from Ireland and Europe – but a serious bid for first mover status in an emerging market and the next industrial revolution of the inevitable shift to a sustainable, low carbon economy. According to HSBC, Europe is seriously lagging behind.
But then, trapped in the neoclassical, ‘business as usual’ economic logic, what could one expect from Richard and fellow-travellers? The real ambition for a green economy is to get rid of the notion of waste completely from the production and consumption process, as promoted by the ‘zero waste’ strategy now endorsed by New Zealand and long championed by ecological economists such as Robin Murray (Creating Wealth from Waste).
I particularly enjoyed the exchange between Richard Tol and Brian Lucey to the effect that the greening of the economy is driven by ideological concerns (i.e. the Greens in coalition) and not by ‘economics’ – as if the neo-classical economic position espoused by both Richard and Brian is not itself ideological! Precious! Perhaps both would like to contribute to the recently launched campaign to remove ‘toxic economic textbooks’ from undergraduate economics courses - that is, remove the dominance of the neo-clasical model and allow some genuine debate and pluralism within economics.
The current economic meltdown is not the result of natural causes or human conspiracy, but because society at all levels became infected with false beliefs regarding the nature of economic reality. And the primary sources of this infection are the “neoclassical” or “mainstream” textbooks long used in introductory economics courses in universities throughout the world”
The Greens, just like Richard and Brian, are engaged in political economy – economics driven by underlying political values – to think that a neo-classical economic position is somehow ‘value free’, ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’ is not only just plain wrong but disingenuous. ALL economic proposals are ideological, period. So let’s have a grown-up debate about political economy - not this nonsense that somehow there is a ‘scientific’ and objective position from which we can analyse and make proposals about the economy.
And, as an afterthought, have any of these neo-classical economists thought of the impact of the massive carbon subsidies (vastly greater than the 13 million euro being talked about here for the stimulation of an indigenous recycling industry) which have locked us into a carbon dependent infrastructure for decades to come? A Green New Deal and the creation of a green, low carbon economy is not simply about government investment, but also the removal of perverse carbon subsidies in order to incentivise and encourage public and market actors. But then why let a good argument get in the way of cheap political and ideological-based point scoring?
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Guest post: Towards a Green New Deal
John Barry: Last summer the influential think and do tank, the new economics foundation, published what turned out to be a prescient report. Called A Green New Deal: Joined-up policies to solve the triple crunch of the credit crisis, climate change and high oil prices, it analysed the interlocking crises of climate change, peak oil and the credit crisis. This report demonstrated that the urgency of making the transition towards a post-carbon economy, i.e. an energy economy not based on declining and volatile fossil fuels, could also promote secure jobs and investment, jobs that cannot be off-shored, but that managing our planned retreat from fossil fuels not only demands clear government leadership but also requires re-regulating and re-structuring the financial sector to ensure it does not undermine the ‘real’ economy. Its predictions have proved not only prescient but prophetic, in that it predicted the current credit and banking crisis and pointed out the reasons in the de-regulated, complex and high-risk strategies that the majority of banking and financial institutions were engaged with.
Then, in October, the United Nations Environment Program, together with the International Labor Organisation and the International Organisation of Employers, launched a major report: Green Jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world.
This report pointed out the millions of secure, well-paid jobs available across the world – but especially in the developing world – in the sustainable, green economy, especially renewable energy production and installation, waste management, water management, building construction, food, agriculture, forestry, transport and and other sectors. As the report states, “It now appears that a green economy can generate more and better jobs everywhere and that these can be decent jobs”.
The election of Barack Obama was based, in part, on his promise of a Roosevelt-style ‘new deal’ for America to help its ailing economy and prevent the haemorrhaging of jobs. The stimulus package just agreed by Congress is a ‘Green New Deal’ in that the infrastructural investment focus is on energy conservation, renewable energy projects, jobs and training. Across the media, economic commentators and political parties, there is a growing acceptance that a Green New Deal is what major economies in the world need: forms of Green Keynesianism and greater public investment and management of the economy. A Green New Deal tackles the issues that global and national economies face in relation to rising unemployment, reducing our addiction to and dependence upon fossil fuels, and also dealing with the threat of climate change. However, there are differences within this emerging agreement around a ‘Green New Deal’.
Those, like most governments including the UK, who see this as part of a temporary ‘blip’ in the global economy and believe that ‘normal service will be resumed’ in a couple of years; and those like the European Green Parties who are campaigning on a common platform in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections, based on viewing the current ‘triple crisis’ as an opportunity which should not be wated to re-design global and national economies in the transition to sustainable, green and less inequitable economies focused on quality of life and economic security – rather than orthodox economic growth.
Across the UK there have been meetings and conferences, as well as media and other commentary, on the outlines of a Green New Deal. In Wales, for example, there was a conference on the Green New Deal entitled ‘A Prosperous Way Down?: Exploring Green Economic Futures for Wales’, while in Northern Ireland, Friends of the Earth held a workshop on the Green Economy in late January, followed up with another in March with contributions from the Northern Ireland trades union movement and Northern Ireland employer representatives. An initial meeting around a Green New Deal for the Republic was held at the end of April.
The Green New Deal is, I strongly believe, one that the unions should get fully behind. I also believe that universities, in particular, should explore the possibilities of providing the space, time and support for workshops and think-ins etc about how to design policies and programmes for the inevitable greening of the economy. At the same time, universities have a unique role and opportunity in this time of crisis to provide expert knowledge and advice on a whole range of issues confronting politicians, policy-makers, businesses and communities. Academics (unionised or not) should be urging their universities to ‘do their bit’ in this time of crisis, and to offer their knowledge, expertise, space and support for genuine dialogue and innovative problem-solving to help our societies get out of this current economic and environmental mess.
Dr. John Barry is Policy Advisor to the Northern Ireland Region of the Green Party. He lectures in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s University, Belfast, and is Assistant Director of the Institute for a Sustainable World, QUB
Then, in October, the United Nations Environment Program, together with the International Labor Organisation and the International Organisation of Employers, launched a major report: Green Jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world.
This report pointed out the millions of secure, well-paid jobs available across the world – but especially in the developing world – in the sustainable, green economy, especially renewable energy production and installation, waste management, water management, building construction, food, agriculture, forestry, transport and and other sectors. As the report states, “It now appears that a green economy can generate more and better jobs everywhere and that these can be decent jobs”.
The election of Barack Obama was based, in part, on his promise of a Roosevelt-style ‘new deal’ for America to help its ailing economy and prevent the haemorrhaging of jobs. The stimulus package just agreed by Congress is a ‘Green New Deal’ in that the infrastructural investment focus is on energy conservation, renewable energy projects, jobs and training. Across the media, economic commentators and political parties, there is a growing acceptance that a Green New Deal is what major economies in the world need: forms of Green Keynesianism and greater public investment and management of the economy. A Green New Deal tackles the issues that global and national economies face in relation to rising unemployment, reducing our addiction to and dependence upon fossil fuels, and also dealing with the threat of climate change. However, there are differences within this emerging agreement around a ‘Green New Deal’.
Those, like most governments including the UK, who see this as part of a temporary ‘blip’ in the global economy and believe that ‘normal service will be resumed’ in a couple of years; and those like the European Green Parties who are campaigning on a common platform in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections, based on viewing the current ‘triple crisis’ as an opportunity which should not be wated to re-design global and national economies in the transition to sustainable, green and less inequitable economies focused on quality of life and economic security – rather than orthodox economic growth.
Across the UK there have been meetings and conferences, as well as media and other commentary, on the outlines of a Green New Deal. In Wales, for example, there was a conference on the Green New Deal entitled ‘A Prosperous Way Down?: Exploring Green Economic Futures for Wales’, while in Northern Ireland, Friends of the Earth held a workshop on the Green Economy in late January, followed up with another in March with contributions from the Northern Ireland trades union movement and Northern Ireland employer representatives. An initial meeting around a Green New Deal for the Republic was held at the end of April.
The Green New Deal is, I strongly believe, one that the unions should get fully behind. I also believe that universities, in particular, should explore the possibilities of providing the space, time and support for workshops and think-ins etc about how to design policies and programmes for the inevitable greening of the economy. At the same time, universities have a unique role and opportunity in this time of crisis to provide expert knowledge and advice on a whole range of issues confronting politicians, policy-makers, businesses and communities. Academics (unionised or not) should be urging their universities to ‘do their bit’ in this time of crisis, and to offer their knowledge, expertise, space and support for genuine dialogue and innovative problem-solving to help our societies get out of this current economic and environmental mess.
Dr. John Barry is Policy Advisor to the Northern Ireland Region of the Green Party. He lectures in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy at Queen’s University, Belfast, and is Assistant Director of the Institute for a Sustainable World, QUB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)