BLOG

Terrorism

TerrorismAs an economist I have a particularly dim view of terrorism. It simply isn’t pareto efficient. The terrorist gains publicity and an awareness of their”Cause”, but at the cost of destruction to invariably innocent bystanders, who typically have no interest in this Cause. The interest thus sparked, instead of becoming powerful and persuasive in support of this cause, is likely to provoke a backlash, resulting in a worse outcome for the terrorist than had he done nothing. When nothing is better than something, you know you are onto a loser…

There is, of course, the action that defies containment: by continuously and repeatedly engaging in terrorist acts, the terrorist forces the target to succumb to his will and adjust policy accordingly. By its nature though, terrorism is usually ill focused and so the recipients of this terror are themselves disperse (this is a “good outcome” – carnage is equalised across random members of the public. It is of course, only good in a relative way…)

Okay – enough economics…so we resort to diplomacy instead. Is this a useful decision? Is it possible to negotiate with groups for whom your very value system may be subject to distrust and contempt? To negotiate with groups for whom your idea of resolution bares an extraordinarily small resemblance to theirs…? Pursue a resolution when actually their aim may include never ending attacks…

Military outcomes: now we’re talking. Let’s bomb the hell out of them! See how resilient they are after a little justice comes their way…Justice for our fallen; justice for our lost, as we avenge our anguish. Yes, this may bring some respite, even a pause in hostilities, but seldom has history shown this as the way forwards in dealing with terrorism. For every terrorist slain, several more are usually willing to step forwards.

Politics: is this all we have? is this good enough? How do we persuade ourselves that this is where we should start from – rather than return to, after a decade of insurmountable loss? A decade of conflict, an era of asymmetric war..? Nothing is ideal, nothing – all we can aim to do is make our engagement with the process as “efficient” as possible. This is what Pareto would have likely advocated…

The Funeral of Lady Thatcher

In the end there appeared to be relatively few protesters out on the streets of London, far outweighed by supporters keen to express their respect and remembrance for a powerful leader and former Prime Minister.

So many comments have already been made, that it is difficult to say something new. I think though that I would like to add, that coming from a part of the UK where her emphasis on allowing the freer movement of both labour and capital, resulted in a near twenty year decline, I have always felt able to see “both sides” of her impact. It is with this knowledge, indeed – experience – that I say quite categorically her impact, though divisive, was powerfully for the good.

We forget the regular blackouts, resulting from inefficient State control of the Electricity Grid (CEGB). We forget the rampant and fickle destruction of incentive caused by secondary picketing and the overwhelming dread many public sector workers felt in heading to a job where a foreman could call “Strike!” for little apparent reason.

We do not forget the strife of honourable workers, determined to defend their rights, but whose time, whether they were accepting of this or not, was fast being chased down by the rolling waves of globalisation, rendering inefficient business redundant in the face of international competition…and we forget, at our peril, where we would be in that great counter-historical possibility, had we allowed Michael Foot to become our Premier. History has a way of righting itself, but in this instance the price would likely be our place in the twenties or thirties of GDP per head, instead of sixth or seventh – and far above this in the prestige and regard in which our international diplomacy and military prowess is held.

There are winners and losers in all games of participation, let us not lose sight of the significant raising of the board that Baroness Thatcher presided over, and those who followed her seek only to refine.

Economics x.0: the debate continues

In most ways, the term “modern economics” has lost its distinction: so many of today’s economists know of no other form of the discipline. The profession, pre Samuelson, is now purely viewed through the lens of history. We take the bits we believe we need and leave the rest. In this case, the “rest” is the subtlety, rather than the headline formulas – the nuance and interpretation that goes along with an understanding of resources (for so many early economists had direct experience of trade themselves.)maths and economics

Will Self, the noted irascible novelist, and no mean thinker himself, broadcast a radio essay recently in which he argued for a re-evaluation of the profession of economics. He had been a PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) student at Oxford, and in his case finalised in the P + P parts of PPE – students drop one and focus on the other two for their last two years. His argument was that the profession itself needs to adopt “more of the P (here denoting Philosophy), and less of the E”.

Economics has become an alienating and exclusive subject, all too lost in its intricate and exhaustive formulas. Recently, in studying part time for an MSc Economics at a well-respected department, after half the taught course, I have found myself learning no new economics, but only struggling unpleasantly with a level of maths that seems relevant only for pure scientists – dealing with pure science. The students have little grasp of the core of economics, and wish only to master the equations in order to pass the qualification – and get good jobs. Broader knowledge and economic thinking (“Economic Thought” in the jargon of university departments) is offered in fewer departments these days, and if it is, is seen as an optional module, rather than the core that it is. Microeconomics seems exclusively to rely on “comparative statics” (holding one variable constant whilst you assess another, in a state of equilibrium, using differential calculus). Yet, given we are not rational beings, the irrationality of this seems wide of the mark. The recent trend in “Behavioural Economics” is a step in the right direction (intertwining psychology into statistical assessments of activities), but again, one isn’t certain if the exercise is just a ruse to further complicate the stats…I remain a fan of Schumpeter, and though for a time, he was head of the Econometric Society, he was also concerned to try and integrate more sociological understanding into his economic theories. The profession would not do too badly by trying to revitalise this, more fully integrationist approach, utilising more of the core social scientific developments, and perhaps fewer of the natural scientific attempts at mapping certainty.

Hence the debate goes on…..and on, for there seems no resolution. In order to be useful, the computationalists argue, we have to quantify our actions and be able to replicate them – anything else is simply hokum, and lacks both rigour and logic. Logic, the theorists demand, is the key to everything. So it may be…but with increasing numbers of economists stemming from maths and engineering, what they are bringing with them is not economics. Moreover, it is pushing away well-equipped critical thinkers from a discipline many regard as diseased with the false certainty of maths.

However, in a lifetime of work, study, family interactions and educational exposure, I have known very few people who are logical and rigorous, consistent and replicable. OK then – but what about the financial markets – surely their purpose can be seen here, comes the counterargument…again, if we had cracked the phenomena of financial dynamics, software programmes that have automated actions following trends’ analysis, would not bring august institutions to the ground in hours and there would likely be no business cycle. For those of you still guessing – we haven’t and they do…By embracing the lack of clarity, and “fuzziness” (a scientific term), perhaps we can promote the contemplative again…

Women and the General Synod

Women are in the ascendant everywhere. Men, with the demise of repetitive factory and manufacturing work, and the outsourcing of industry, have somewhat lost their way in the world. Men may earn more for the same work, we may occupy way too many spaces on Boards, but many of us secretly know women are naturally better professionals than we are. Women, with their superior “soft” skills, penchant for team work and innate diplomacy, are taking over the world.

The World, outside of the Church of England that is…

The notice for the right to ordane women clergy as Bishops came again to a vote in the General Synod yesterday. The Synod comprises three “Houses”; in order to pass, the vote needed a successful outcome in each of these three Houses. The Bishops approved the vote, but the Laity, sadly not. We are now in a position where the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and his successor, support a modernised principle that the Laity do not.

Churches, as with any other Institution, comprise their membership, and require of this membership an active, informed and participative process of engagement. How can the C of E not now be seen increasingly as the relic it is so swiftly turning into. Women deserve to be Bishops, and have earned the right, through centuries of missionary work, through outreach, and arguably their “husbanding” (not a misnomer) the Church through periods of turmoil. Women showing great clarity of purpose during recent trials of Faith. Challenges including the abuse cases littering Catholicism (can Priests now marry?) and the exodus from the C of E to the Roman church, of so many, during the original ordination of women clergy some twenty years ago.

As the present Archbishop noted: this is not going to go away. Can we wait another five hundred years for the Church to catch up with the rest of society? I’d say watch this space, yet the likelihood is, there’ll be little left to look at….

Turkey strikes Syria…

In June this year, Syrian forces shot down a Turkish military jet, claiming that it was in Syrian airspace. Turkey maintains that it was clearly in Turkish airspace. So began a militarisation of the conflict between Turkey and Syria – neighbours, former allies and potentially powerful enemies.

Recently, the Turkish parliament passed a Bill allowing unilateral military action against Syria, resulting from a shell fired over the border having killed 5 civilians. “It is not a bill for war”, said Besir Atalay, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minsiter, though it is intended to possess “deterrent qualities”.  Turkey retains one of the world’s largest standing armies, at roughly half a million soldiers it is larger than the professional armies of the UK, France and Germany combined. It is second only in size, within the Nato bloc, to that of the US. Similarly, as of last year, there are serious and considered plans to yet further double the size of the Turkish army – to a million soliders trained and paid for by the Turkish state. The aim being to both solve issues Turkey has had for many years with terrorism and its Kurdish separatists in the southeast, and long term structural unemployment.

Turkey has been reserved in its response to the growing violence in Syria, fearing unilateral involvement, and actively pursuing a UN resolution or a broader NATO containment force to be deployed. It is critically aware of historic sentiments towards its Ottoman rule over much of the Middle East. Yet, like the quiet but forceful boy in the playground, it’s not really wise for Syria to go poking him in the eye…

30,000 estimated deaths in Syria, as of early October 2012, is still apparently not enough to prompt either a consensual UN resolution, or an intention from NATO to deploy force. The rebels are not tiring of their all too just cause, and Assad feels strengthened both by this International inertia and the civil strife in the country his family has dominated for two generations.

A hammer to crack a nut…

The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) has decreed that London Metropolitan University (LMU) has forfeited it’s right to sponsor foreign students. By foreign, it means non-EU students. Precisely the sort that LMU prefer, as their fees are far higher – even after the home students’ increase – than everyone else’s.

This is bizarre, misapplied jingoistic policy at it’s worst. Sure, there may be students who don’t have the right to stay in the UK; they may have out stayed their Visa, or be working – or never have studied in the first place. Find them, and deport them, but don’t stigmatise 2000 students whose sole crime is not being European.

The University should be sanctioned, fined, license restrictions imposed…but don’t penalise the students, some of whom may have bankrupted their families to send them to what they, wrongly, thought was a prestigious English establishment dedicated to truth, knowledge and the pursuit of self betterment. The reputation of the UK University sector overseas may not recover from this act. Education is a very fast moving market, and an English one is not necessarily seen as gilt edged anymore – even if it still fares well by international comparison. In such a responsive sector, Government action should be there to facilitate and support, not undermine and jeopardise.