Political economics and normative analysis

The approaches and opinions of economists often dominate public policy discussion. Economists have gained this privileged position partly (or perhaps mainly) because of the obvious relevance of their subject matter, but also because of the unified methodology (neo-classical economics) that the vast majority of modern economists bring to their analysis of policy problems and proposed solutions. The idea of Pareto efficiency and its potential trade-off with equity is a central idea that is understood by all economists and this common language provides the economics profession with a powerful voice in public affairs. The purpose of this paper is to review and reflect upon the way in which economists find themselves analysing and providing suggestions for social improvements and how this role has changed over roughly the last 60 years. We focus on the fundamental split in the public economics tradition between those that adhere to public finance and those that adhere to public choice. A pure public finance perspective views failures in society as failures of the market. The solutions are technical, as might be enacted by a benevolent dictator. The pure public choice view accepts (sometimes grudgingly) that markets may fail, but so, it insists, does politics. This signals institutional reforms to constrain the potential for political failure. Certain policy recommendations may be viewed as compatible with both traditions, but other policy proposals will be the opposite of that proposed within the other tradition. In recent years a political economics synthesis emerged. This accepts that institutions are very important and governments require constraints, but that some degree of benevolence on the part of policy makers should not be assumed non-existent. The implications for public policy from this approach are, however, much less clear and perhaps more piecemeal. We also discuss analyses of systematic failure, not so much on the part of markets or politicians, but by voters. Most clearly this could lead to populism and relaxing the idea that voters necessarily choose their interests. The implications for public policy are addressed. Throughout the paper we will relate the discussion to the experience of UK government policy-making.Public Finance, Public Choice, Public Economics, Political Economics, Normative Analysis

The Government’s narrow EVEL proposals are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past

In the wake of the Referendum on Scottish Independence, the Prime Minister announced that he would be reforming the operation of the House of Commons in order to disqualify Scottish Members of Parliament from voting on legislation deemed to be ‘English only’. On July 2nd, the Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling announced what form this reform would take. Iain McLean argues that these proposals, which he terms ‘narrow’, risk repeating the mistakes of the past when the UK government wrestled with similar issues vis Ireland

The Smith Commission Report is short, but packs a big punch

The Smith Commission recently announced its recommendations for the future of Scottish governance. Iain McLean argues that the Commission has astutely wrought concessions from the main political parties involved, and packs quite a punch for a short (28 page) document

Course developers as students: a designer perspective of the experience of learning online

Academic developers of online courses may not have experienced this mode of learning and teaching from the learner perspective. This article makes a comparison between suggestions for online course design from research literature and user perspectives from a focus group, responses to questions on the most and least effective aspects of online study and lasting impressions, and from reflective diaries kept by two of the authors while they were engaged in study from online courses. This direct evidence is used to highlight key issues in the literature from the viewpoint of the learner

Royal archives that we pay for but aren’t allowed to read: a brief history

The Cabinet Office recently blocked publication of Lord Mountbatten’s diaries. Iain McLean, Scot Peterson, and Richard Reid write that this is not the first time when archives funded by the taxpayer have not been available after the standard embargo period, the effect being that public knowledge of key constitutional and political events is limited

European integration and the social science of EU studies: the disciplinary politics of a subfield

This article takes the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome as an opportunity to reflect upon half a century of academic discourse about the EU and its antecedents. In particular, it illuminates the theoretical analysis of European integration that has developed within political science and international studies broadly defined. It asks whether it is appropriate to map, as might be tempting, the intellectual 'progress' of the field of study against the empirical evolution of its object (European integration/the EU). The argument to be presented here is that while we can, to some extent, comprehend the evolution of academic thinking about the EU as a reflex to critical shifts in the 'real world' of European integration ('externalist' drivers), it is also necessary to understand 'internalist' drivers of theoretical discourse on European integration/the EU. The article contemplates two such 'internalist' components that have shaped and continue to shape the course of EU studies: scholarly contingency (the fact that scholarship does not proceed with free agency, but is bound by various conditions) and disciplinary politics (the idea that the course of academic work is governed by power games and that there are likely significant disagreements about best practice and progress in a field). In terms of EU studies, the thrust of disciplinary politics tends towards an opposition between 'mainstreaming' and 'pluralist versions' of the political science of EU studies. The final section explores how, in the face of emerging monistic claims about propriety in the field, an effective pluralist political science of the EU might be enhanced

“Not bad for a 28-page report”: experts respond to the SmithCommission’s proposals on Scottish governance

The Smith Commission yesterday published its official recommendations for the future of Scottish governance following the Scottish independence referendum. Democratic Audit asked Iain McLean, Coree Brown, Norman Bonney, Craig McAngus and Paul Cairney to give their views on the proposals and their implications