The welfare state and privatization

The “Great Capitalist Restoration” (Stanfield and Stanfield, 1996) from the 1970s/80s onward is predicated upon powerful convictions centring on economic efficiency and development, and the freedom and dignity of the individual. Indeed, so powerful are these convictions that they exude the aura of conventional wisdom. The welfare state has been, and continues to be, a prominent locus for these arguments. Yet there is some ambiguity concerning the nature of the ‘welfare state’ and what is meant by ‘privatization’. It is beyond the parameters of this chapter to furnish a comprehensive account of the complexities of this contested terrain, but nonetheless, some attempt will be made in furnishing definitions that act as entry points to the principal focus of the discussion. This relates to an aspect of the second claim noted above: dignity. Neo-liberalism embeds dignity in a particular conceptualisation of individual freedom. In this literature, as Sen (1993) observed, freedom- achievements are associated with welfare-achievements. For example, Wiseman (1991) contests that if “welfare” is identified with the “existence of caring feelings” then the market is revealed as not only the conduit to greater welfare and individual freedom, but also care and dignity. Of necessity the paper is general in nature as it endeavours to address important conceptual issues. The following section considers the analytical terrain by briefly reviewing some definitional issues. Thereafter the rationale for ‘privatization’ and recent trends in associated approaches are noted, with a contrasting social economics perspective advanced. Social economists also stress the importance of human dignity within the social provisioning process that is the economy. This has led Wisman (2003: 442) to observe that the scope of social economics encapsulates as its primary task the analysis of the requisites of “the good and just society”. Hence, in contrast to much of the underlying economic rationale for the “Great Capitalist Restoration”, or neo-liberalism, there is an explicit recognition that the Humean fault line between the positive and normative is more illusory than real. In setting out to investigate parameters of Wisman’s “good and just society” explicit recognition of human needs (O’Boyle, 2005) and the contours of “living standards” (Figart, 2007) are both necessary if not sufficient. Drawing from this literature this chapter argues that the patterns of welfare state reform, primarily through some form of privatization, are not as persuasively related to the enhancement of human dignity as its advocates suggest

Shifting Skill Demand and the Canada-US Unemployment Gap: Evidence from Prime-Age Men

This paper considers the possible role of shifts in labour demand away from unskilled workers, combined with an institutionally- generated greater labour supply elasticity in Canada, in explaining the apparent secular increase in Canadian male unemployment, and in explaining the emergence of the Canada-U.S. unemployment rate gap in the 1980's. Using comparable data on annual weeks worked and unemployed in both countries, we identify four main facts which are consistent with such this explanation: Both Canada and the US experienced wage polarization over this period, with substantial real wage declines for unskilled men; annual weeks worked fell disproportionately among unskilled workers in both countries; responses of weeks worked to wage declines were more elastic in Canada; and aggregate movements out of employment over this period corresponded closely to movements into unemployment in Canada. Interestingly, however, unskilled U.S. men were more likely than Canadians to leave the labour force as their employment fell, adding further to the Canada-U.S. unemployment gap. As well, some fairly substantial decreases in weeks worked are observed quite high up in the Canadian wage distribution, where wages did not fall appreciably. The latter changes cannot easily be explained by a shifts in labour demand alone.

Implementing structural funds in the new member states: ten policy challenges

Paper presented at the ‘Roundtable on Benchmarking the Ten New Member States’, organised by the Scottish Executive EU Office

EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions : investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states

This paper undertakes a critical assessment of the influence of the EU Cohesion policy on regionalisation and the role of regional institutions in Central and Eastern Europe. It addresses questions that are central to ongoing theoretical debates about the role of the region in the new member states. Have the powers and resources of the regions been strengthened by their involvement in EU support programmes? Are regions increasingly involved in integrated 'bottom-up' responses to regional development challenges? The paper offers a fresh perspective on these issues, with a cross-national analysis of practical experience in the postenlargement period and a detailed assessment of the technical, variable, and complex reality of working with EU Structural Funds. A distinctive approach of the analysis is to disaggregate the stages of Structural Funds programme management and delivery, thereby highlighting the varied nature of regional involvement in Structural Funds. Ultimately, the paper questions the notion that Structural Funds build regional structures and competence, and lead to 'stronger regions'. Instead, it is argued that there is no guarantee that the Structural Funds will necessarily promote regionalisation in Central and Eastern Europe, at least in the short to medium terms

Neuroeconomics: infeasible and underdetermined

Advocates of neuroeconomics claim to offer the prospect of creating a “unified behavioral theory” by drawing upon the techniques of neuroscience and psychology and combining them with economic theory. Ostensibly, through the “direct measurement” of our thoughts, economics and social science will be “revolutionized.” Such claims have been subject to critique from mainstream and non-mainstream economists alike. Many of these criticisms relate to measurability, relevance, and coherence. In this article, we seek to contribute to this critical examination by investigating the potential of underdetermination, such as the statement that testing involves the conjunction of auxiliary assumptions, and that consequently it may not be possible to isolate the effect of any given hypothesis. We argue that neuroeconomics is especially sensitive to issues of underdetermination. Institutional economists should be cautious of neuroeconomists’ zeal as they appear to over-interpret experimental findings and, therefore, neuroeconomics may provide a false prospectus seeking to reinforce the nostrums of homo economicus

The agency of hybrids: overcoming the symmetrophobic block

We respond to ‘challenge 3’ presented in Rose, Jones and Truex’s excellent polemic by way of elucidating the meanings of hybrids, actants, agency and symmetry in Actor-Network Theory. We provide a (very brief) account of Latour’s project to unravel the modernist epistemological settlement that separates humans and non-humans in the world, and that alas so often results in errors and confusions. We contend that the framing of the challenge itself implies the very distinctions that ANT seeks to reject (namely the dichotomization of the world into mutually exclusive ‘subject’ and ‘object’ divisions). Following Latour, we argue that such pure forms do not exist—and furthermore that ‘agency’ is the property of complex hybrids comprised of various strands of human and non-human materials and abstract elements. This is the true meaning of the principle of symmetry! We conclude with some counter-challenges of our own

Situating care in mainstream health economics: an ethical dilemma?

Standard health economics concentrates on the provision of care by medical professionals. Yet ‘care’ receives scant analysis; it is portrayed as a spillover effect or externality in the form of interdependent utility functions. In this context care can only be conceived as either acts of altruism or as social capital. Both conceptions are subject to considerable problems stemming from mainstream health economics’ reliance on a reductionist social model built around instrumental rationality and consequentialism. Subsequently, this implies a disregard for moral rules and duties and the compassionate aspects of behaviour. Care as an externality is a second-order concern relative to self-interested utility maximization, and is therefore crowded out by the parameters of the standard model. We outline an alternative relational approach to conceptualising care based on the social embeddedness of the individual that emphasises the ethical properties of care. The deontological dimension of care suggests that standard health economics is likely to undervalue the importance of care and caring in medicine

Ireland, Northern Ireland and Western Scotland cross corder territorial cooperation programme 2007–2013 : Development of a Joint Strategic Approach on Behalf of Scottish Partners, First Interim Report to Scotland Europa, Glasgow

Examines the development of the Ireland, Northern Ireland and Western Scotland cross corder territorial cooperation programme between 2007and 2013

Reconsidering Cohesion Policy : the Contested debate on Territorial Cohesion

The incorporation of territorial cohesion as a regional policy objective has focused attention on the potential role of territorial cooperation in pursuing this goal. However, the broad agreement on the positive effects of territorial cooperation is not always matched by the same enthusiasm when funds are being allocated. The concrete impact of territorial cooperation is often difficult to identify. At the same time, in terms of the qualitative impacts of territorial cooperation, the added value of INTERREG for territorial cohesion is difficult to dispute