Peadar Kirby: When speaking to the NESC on Friday last, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny made a point that, if taken seriously, has the potential to address what has been a major weakness in Irish public policy. According to the report in The Irish Times, the Taoiseach said that council recommendations need not always be based on a consensus view. “It is better to have reports which reflect some variety of views, rather than self-censorship which excludes consideration of difficult questions,” he said.
The Taoiseach’s comments identify what has been a major problem with the policy advice given to successive governments by the NESC, a problem that to my knowledge has never before been identified. This is that NESC reports need to win agreement from the social partners and, as a result, they tend to fudge rather than highlight policy options, often ending up saying quite contradictory things in the same document. Because most of the reports are lengthy, these contradictions tend not to be noticed as different interest groups can find elements that suit their needs. Neither have academics, with a few notable exceptions, studied these reports with the attention they deserve so that they have rarely generated much public debate.
All of this has served to impoverish public debate on the making of policy as quite narrow and technical approaches have tended to dominate, usually limiting access to experts and failing to address the deeper values that inform policies and the goals to be achieved. Enda Kenny’s recommendation of the validity of a variety of views is therefore refreshing and of great significance. Equally, his advice to the council to consider producing more frequent, shorter and more timely reports, if these served to foster debate on the different options facing society, has the potential to make a major contribution to the kinds of debates we so badly need.
In this regard, the methodology followed in Costa Rica is worthy of study. There an annual state of the nation report is drawn up by a team of worthy citizens – usually former presidents and government ministers, retired senior academics and other senior figures, aided by a team of experts. All of this is done under the aegis of the rectors of the country’s public universities. What makes these different to the reports produced by NESC is that they explicitly seek to highlight the different options facing policy makers and the public on specific areas of public policy. Regularly the reports contain dissenting views, making clear the basis for the differences identified. All of this serves to nurture and inform a variety of approaches to public policy, greatly enriching the process of policy making and drawing into the discussion wider sectors of the population.
This may be one reason why Costa Rica stands out in Central America for the quality of its public policy, being a global leader in policies on climate change and avoiding the worst of the recent financial crisis through its regulation of the banking sector and its early stimulus package to maintain demand in the economy. As a result, credit kept flowing and economic recovery kicked in quickly. The main problem now facing policy makers is how to reduce a budget deficit that reached 3.3 per cent of GDP at the height of the crisis!
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Monday, 20 June 2011
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Crisis shedding light on the Irish state
Peadar Kirby: We may live in very exceptional times, in which the speed of how the Irish crisis is developing is literally breathtaking. Yet, for all that, what is most disturbing is how it manifests just how little has actually changed, illustrating yet again in stark terms some long-standing features of how the Irish state operates. Despite the intense focus on the immediate pressure of events, it is most important that we recognise the very familiar posture adopted by Irish policy makers and by the Irish state, since it highlights what will have to change if we are to have any hope of building a more sustainable and equitable future. Another way of putting this is to state that the largely economic and financial discourse that dominates debate needs to be balanced by a discourse that focuses on the administrative and the political features of the current crisis.
While it is true that a crisis requires crisis management, what we need to examine is how this crisis is being managed, as it is this which is very revealing. What is most striking is that politicians and policy makers give the impression of being dragged along by events to which they are reacting, with little sense of forward planning. While this might be understandable amid a crisis that is far more severe than could have been reasonably anticipated, it also needs to be recognised that the intensity of the crisis right at this moment derives from the fact that the state has a very poor capacity for longer-term forward planning and has failed to even begin to address the challenge of designing a more adequate system of taxation. These failures cannot be blamed on the present crisis as they are very familiar features of the Irish state. Why did it take so long to realise that the present crisis required multi-annual budgetary planning (indeed long before the present crisis, this capacity should have been developed) and, even more glaringly, why have the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation not been used as the basis for a re-design of the taxation system? If this had been done, not only would it help inform the budgetary strategy but it would also have helped give a sense of confidence that the state would be able to deal with the crisis.
Take the issue of corporation tax. What is remarkable about the present debate on these issues is just how successfully powerful vested interests have created a firm consensus throughout Irish society that the present level of corporation tax is untouchable. It is simply ruled out as a possible subject of debate any time it is raised, and the Irish media and Irish society as a whole (judging by the complete lack of debate on the issue) seem to acquiesce in this. Is this not extremely revealing? At a time when we are agonising over cutting back welfare payments, pensions, various supports for the most vulnerable in our society, and core funding for our health and education services, and are being told that the pain must be widely shared, we all seem to accept that powerful global corporations who declare a very high level of profits in Ireland should share absolutely no part of the adjustment. This remarkably benign and subservient treatment is based on the claim that raising corporation tax by a percentage point or two might undermine a core part of the state’s development strategy. But instead of debating whether this might be so, and seeking evidence as to what impact it might have, we simply succumb to a response based on fear.
Long before the present crisis, it was evident that the normal posture of the Irish state, particularly in the social sphere, was reactive crisis-management. There are very few examples where the state proactively instituted an ongoing process of reforming itself so as to avoid the emergence of crises. Indeed, the very term ‘reform’ appears to be equated to a process of cost-cutting rather than to a complex process of institutional design so as to more effectively achieve public goals. One could adduce numerous other examples which illustrate both the lack of policy-making based on hard evidence and also the lack of a process of robust and wide deliberation in the formulation of policy. The first weakness derives in part from the gap that has for too long separated those who make policy from those who could provide evidence that might inform the process; instead, civil servants all too often rely on consultants who are not intimately familiar with the latest research nationally or internationally. The second gap derives from the weakness of a culture of robust deliberation, not only in the political realm but also in the media. One can only hope that the present crisis will make policy makers more aware of the need to draw on social scientific evidence and generate a broader debate on the options facing us as a society. There is some evidence that the latter is happening; I’m not aware of much evidence that the former has begun.
While it is true that a crisis requires crisis management, what we need to examine is how this crisis is being managed, as it is this which is very revealing. What is most striking is that politicians and policy makers give the impression of being dragged along by events to which they are reacting, with little sense of forward planning. While this might be understandable amid a crisis that is far more severe than could have been reasonably anticipated, it also needs to be recognised that the intensity of the crisis right at this moment derives from the fact that the state has a very poor capacity for longer-term forward planning and has failed to even begin to address the challenge of designing a more adequate system of taxation. These failures cannot be blamed on the present crisis as they are very familiar features of the Irish state. Why did it take so long to realise that the present crisis required multi-annual budgetary planning (indeed long before the present crisis, this capacity should have been developed) and, even more glaringly, why have the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation not been used as the basis for a re-design of the taxation system? If this had been done, not only would it help inform the budgetary strategy but it would also have helped give a sense of confidence that the state would be able to deal with the crisis.
Take the issue of corporation tax. What is remarkable about the present debate on these issues is just how successfully powerful vested interests have created a firm consensus throughout Irish society that the present level of corporation tax is untouchable. It is simply ruled out as a possible subject of debate any time it is raised, and the Irish media and Irish society as a whole (judging by the complete lack of debate on the issue) seem to acquiesce in this. Is this not extremely revealing? At a time when we are agonising over cutting back welfare payments, pensions, various supports for the most vulnerable in our society, and core funding for our health and education services, and are being told that the pain must be widely shared, we all seem to accept that powerful global corporations who declare a very high level of profits in Ireland should share absolutely no part of the adjustment. This remarkably benign and subservient treatment is based on the claim that raising corporation tax by a percentage point or two might undermine a core part of the state’s development strategy. But instead of debating whether this might be so, and seeking evidence as to what impact it might have, we simply succumb to a response based on fear.
Long before the present crisis, it was evident that the normal posture of the Irish state, particularly in the social sphere, was reactive crisis-management. There are very few examples where the state proactively instituted an ongoing process of reforming itself so as to avoid the emergence of crises. Indeed, the very term ‘reform’ appears to be equated to a process of cost-cutting rather than to a complex process of institutional design so as to more effectively achieve public goals. One could adduce numerous other examples which illustrate both the lack of policy-making based on hard evidence and also the lack of a process of robust and wide deliberation in the formulation of policy. The first weakness derives in part from the gap that has for too long separated those who make policy from those who could provide evidence that might inform the process; instead, civil servants all too often rely on consultants who are not intimately familiar with the latest research nationally or internationally. The second gap derives from the weakness of a culture of robust deliberation, not only in the political realm but also in the media. One can only hope that the present crisis will make policy makers more aware of the need to draw on social scientific evidence and generate a broader debate on the options facing us as a society. There is some evidence that the latter is happening; I’m not aware of much evidence that the former has begun.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
The Irish Credit Bubble
Slí Eile: Here is a link to an interesting paper by economist Morgan Kelly at UCD.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Facing up to inequality
Peadar Kirby: Tasc's survey of public opinion on inequality in Irish society is both welcome and significant. One of the remarkable and disturbing aspects of the Celtic Tiger years is the neglect of inequality as a objective of public policy, and its replacement by the much more restrictive goal of 'combating poverty' (a goal that is arguably now even further weakened by the incorporation of the former Combat Poverty Agency in the Social Inclusion Office). Even the Equality Authority, now also greatly weakened by budget cutbacks that can only be described as vindictive, had no brief to reduce socio-economic inequality, despite the efforts of its former CEO, Niall Crowley. Tasc's Inequality Survey shows that this is an issue that matters to the public thus strengthening its claim to become the object of public policy.
The significance of the Tasc survey, however, goes further than this. For, at long last, it draws in a forceful way into Irish debates, the topic of socio-economic inequality. For its accompanying text on "The Solidarity Factor" undertakes a valuable social science exercise (unfortunately neglected by most Irish social scientists) to make an approximation of the changing dynamic of the income structure (so influential in constituting a society's social structure) in the immediate aftermath of the Celtic Tiger boom. While those of more strictly quantitative persuasion may fault it for jumping to certain conclusions, those of us who are constantly frustrated by the profoundly conservative and cautious bias of the output of the ESRI stable, will welcome a valuable contribution to debate on what is happening to our social structure in a time of immense social change.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on precariousness as it has seemed to me for some time that this is a crucial concept to capture the distinctive impacts of processes associated with what we label as 'globalisation' (see my 'Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation', Pluto Press, 2006). I agree completely with Tasc's conclusion that 'when viewing income groups through this prism, it becomes obvious that earlier boundaries (e.g. of occupation) which made income groups relatively impermeable in the past are now much more blurred. Thus - especially in the context of a recession - those who are 'comfortably off' may share precarious employment with the 'working poor' ' (page 6). This, of course, contradicts (rightly, in my view) the attempt of the ESRI to use the concept of vulnerability to identify a 'vulnerable class' in Irish society which they limited to 20 per cent of the population (see their 'Best of Times?' book). As Tasc makes clear, in the conditions of today's world, precariousness or vulnerability are much more generalised in their impact. We urgently need to attend to the public policy implications of such an insight.
Tasc's initiative is also to be welcomed in the context of the recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' (Allen Lane, 2009). This assembles a range of evidence that correlates socio-economic inequality with social ills. In doing this, it raises very important issues that require urgent consideration by policy makers. There is a danger that the conditions of our current economic and social crisis may lead us to believe that such issues are a luxury to be postponed for better times. However, since we so totally failed to address them during our boom years, their urgency requires that we don't postpone them any more. Hopefully Tasc's initiative will stimulate a badly overdue public debate.
The significance of the Tasc survey, however, goes further than this. For, at long last, it draws in a forceful way into Irish debates, the topic of socio-economic inequality. For its accompanying text on "The Solidarity Factor" undertakes a valuable social science exercise (unfortunately neglected by most Irish social scientists) to make an approximation of the changing dynamic of the income structure (so influential in constituting a society's social structure) in the immediate aftermath of the Celtic Tiger boom. While those of more strictly quantitative persuasion may fault it for jumping to certain conclusions, those of us who are constantly frustrated by the profoundly conservative and cautious bias of the output of the ESRI stable, will welcome a valuable contribution to debate on what is happening to our social structure in a time of immense social change.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on precariousness as it has seemed to me for some time that this is a crucial concept to capture the distinctive impacts of processes associated with what we label as 'globalisation' (see my 'Vulnerability and Violence: The Impact of Globalisation', Pluto Press, 2006). I agree completely with Tasc's conclusion that 'when viewing income groups through this prism, it becomes obvious that earlier boundaries (e.g. of occupation) which made income groups relatively impermeable in the past are now much more blurred. Thus - especially in the context of a recession - those who are 'comfortably off' may share precarious employment with the 'working poor' ' (page 6). This, of course, contradicts (rightly, in my view) the attempt of the ESRI to use the concept of vulnerability to identify a 'vulnerable class' in Irish society which they limited to 20 per cent of the population (see their 'Best of Times?' book). As Tasc makes clear, in the conditions of today's world, precariousness or vulnerability are much more generalised in their impact. We urgently need to attend to the public policy implications of such an insight.
Tasc's initiative is also to be welcomed in the context of the recent book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett: 'The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better' (Allen Lane, 2009). This assembles a range of evidence that correlates socio-economic inequality with social ills. In doing this, it raises very important issues that require urgent consideration by policy makers. There is a danger that the conditions of our current economic and social crisis may lead us to believe that such issues are a luxury to be postponed for better times. However, since we so totally failed to address them during our boom years, their urgency requires that we don't postpone them any more. Hopefully Tasc's initiative will stimulate a badly overdue public debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)