Category / Politics

by Oisín Gilmore

NOTE TO SELF READ THESE

Basically just noting these articles to myself and anyone else who might be interested. Both were published over the last month. One of the recent past one on the rather distant past.

Three million Trotskyists? Explaining extreme left voting in France in the 2002 presidential election

In the first round of the 2002 French presidential election, three million voters (10.4 per cent of the national vote) supported Trotskyist candidates. This unprecedented electoral result has received little academic attention. This study aimed to identify the strongest socio-demographic and attitudinal predictors of support for the new extreme left in 2002. A multivariate framework was applied in a series of models, using data from the 2002 French Electoral Panel. The study also aimed to understand the rise of the Trotskyists in the context of broader social and political developments. The analysis was grounded in series of hypotheses constituting a model of class voting in postindustrial France. Overall, the analysis tended to confirm the predictions of the model, with younger voters at the lower end of the service sector being the most likely to support the three Trotskyist parties. With regard to attitudes, opposition to economic liberalism proved the strongest single predictor of Trotskyist voting, followed by liberal attitudes on cultural issues, political distrust and political disengagement. However, in terms of economic attitudes, Trotskyist voters still came out as surprisingly close to mainstream left voters. In conclusion, it is argued that models of class voting should reconsider the political role of social class in a postindustrial context, and pay particular attention to the trajectories of different classes over time in terms of changing employment conditions and life chances in order to understand how class is likely to shape party preferences.

Black man’s burden, white man’s welfare: control, devolution and development in the British Empire, 1880-1914

This article organizes an economic analysis of the effects of colonial rule on capital market access and development. Our insights provide an interpretation of institutional variance and growth performance across British colonies. We emphasize the degree of coercion available to British authorities in explaining alternative set-ups. White colonies, with a credible exit option, managed to secure a better deal than those where non-whites predominated, for which we find evidence of welfare losses.

by Oisín Gilmore

SOME NEW RESEARCH ON THE EMPIRICAL DETERMINANTS OF STATE FRAGILITY

Graziella Bertocchi summarizes some of the recent work she has done with Andrea Guerzoni over at VOX.eu.

The causes and implications of state fragility – also known as state failure – are not yet well understood. This column explores the determinants of state fragility in sub-Saharan Africa and finds that institutions – as measured by civil liberties and the number of revolutions – are the main drivers. It says institutions trump economic, geographic, and historical factors.  

The interesting findings are:

We find that institutional variables are the key determinants of state fragility. The probability of a country having a fragile state decreases with the level of civil liberties and increases with the number of revolutions. Economic determinants such as per capita GDP growth and investment are not significant when we introduce standard controls for omitted variables. Geography is also insignificant while colonial history appears to be only marginally relevant. These conclusion hold after controlling for endogeneity with standard analytical tools.

She ends the article drawing conclusions regarding EU aid and how including an emphasis on social objective as well as economic ons might feed back into economic growth.

 Among the goals declared since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the EU emphasises international cooperation, with the objectives to foster and consolidate democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Our findings suggest that pursuing these objectives may indeed complement economic aid to developing countries, since it implies that the EU should be interested in reducing of the likelihood of state fragility throughout the world, resulting in a positive impact on their aid absorption.

I’m pretty interested in this question of how social objectives facilitate economic growth. From my reading the evidence that they impede on economic growth is not as strong as some might suggest. I might come back to this in another post in a few days.

by Oisín Gilmore

LAW SAYS SHAREHOLDERS DON`T OWN CORPORATIONS!

There`s an interesting article in the current edition of Harvard Business Review entitled “The Myth of Shareholder Capitalism”. In it the authors, Loizos Heracleous and Luh Luh Lan, state

Oddly, no previous management research has looked at what the legal literature says about the topic, so we conducted a systematic analysis of a century’s worth of legal theory and precedent. It turns out that the law provides a surprisingly clear answer: Shareholders do not own the corporation, which is an autonomous legal person. What’s more, when directors go against shareholder wishes—even when a loss in value is documented—courts side with directors the vast majority of the time. Shareholders seem to get this. They’ve tried to unseat directors through lawsuits just 24 times in large corporations over the past 20 years; they’ve succeeded only eight times. In short, directors are to a great extent autonomous. 

And yet, in an important 2007 article in the Journal of Business Ethics, 31 of 34 directors surveyed (each of whom served on an average of six Fortune 200 boards) said they’d cut down a mature forest or release a dangerous, unregulated toxin into the environment in order to increase profits. Whatever they could legally do to maximize shareholder wealth, they believed it was their duty to do.

There`s two pretty interesting things here. Firstly that “Shareholders do not own the corporation, which is an autonomous legal person”. I suppose intuitively this makes sense. We all know, from watching The Corporationif nothing else, that corporations have legal personality. And although a lot of lefties make a really big deal out of this, I`ve never heard anyone point out the flip-side which is that as Corporations have a legal responsibility in and of themselves, it is not legally justified to act solely in the interests of the shareholders. (If this is legally wrong, I appreciate someone pointing it out).

 The other interesting thing is the rather shocking finding in the Journal of Business Ethics. I hadn`t come across that before.

by Oisín Gilmore

POLL SAYS 1/4 OF US REPUBLICANS THINK OBAMA “MAY BE THE ANTI-CHRIST”

I’m not sure if this says something negative about humanity, America, the American Right or polling as a methodology, but, as the Telegraphreports, 24% of American republicans think Obama “may be the anti-Christ”. The full details are over here. The poll seems to have been conducted in connection with the publication of some book, which might raise methodological questions. Nevertheless, one of the pollsters explains that when he saw the poll results:

he was “flabbergasted. I would’ve guessed the numbers would’ve been a lot smaller than that.” 

He added, “It means that very large numbers of people are misninformed not only about President Obama but many things in modern life.”

Its a funny world we live in.

by Oisín Gilmore

ACADEMICS CONDEMN WILLIE WALSH

A rather encouraging albeit unusual letter has been published in today’s Guardian. It was signed many if not most of the UK’s top Industrial Relations academics. The body of the letter is

Dear Editor,

As academics in the field of employment relations our expertise includes the analysis of the causes, process and outcomes of industrial disputes and particularly the dynamics of strike action. Given the near certainty of further strikes (Follow-up strike will go ahead says union, March 22nd), it is clear to us that the actions of the chief executive of British Airways, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, are explicable only by the desire to break the union which represents the cabin crew. What other possible interpretation can there be forWillie Walsh rejecting Unite’s acceptance of BA’s previous offer or indeed of his marshalling of resources, including those of bitter industry rival Ryanair, to undermine the action of his staff? Walsh and now Prime Minister Brown have made the error of underestimating the deep seated and justifiable anger of a loyal and dedicated workforce, whose continued trust and goodwill is a vital ingredient of customer care.

Overwhelming majorities in two strike ballots in the face of tabloid opprobrium testify to employees’ understanding that a victory for Walsh’s macho management strategy would precipitate a race to the bottom in terms of working conditions and job quality. In the process, this would damage beyond repair the high standards of customer service for which BA cabin crew are renowned. The wider significance of a triumph of unilateral management prerogative would be a widening of the representation gap in UK employment relations, and a further erosion of worker rights and of that most precious of commodities – democracy. For all these reasons, BA’s cabin crew and their union, Unite, deserve our support rather than knee-jerk vilification.

I haven’t included the list of signatures but it’s well worth a look.

by Oisín Gilmore

IMPLOSION OF THE GOP

Something not particularly relevant for us over here in the EU,* but still pretty interesting is the implosion of the US Republican party. I’ve been following it a little bit via the blogosphere etc. and the sole voice of reason,  a kind of Ken Clarke of the GOP today has been David Frum. (One difference being that Frum doesn’t seem to have anywhere near the same level of support as Clarke did.) Frum has however just recently being fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Bruce Barlett another Republican exile has a post lamenting this over here. *Rereading this post I just realised that this is the first time I’ve ever used the phrase ‘here in the EU’

by Oisín Gilmore

YOU CAN STILL BUY VOTES IN IRELAND

I had a quick look over “Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish Elections of 2002” by Kenneth Benoit and Michael Marsh in the current issue of Political Research Quarterly. It seems kind of interesting and thought I’d flag it up. Here’s the abstract:

Positive effects of campaign spending on electoral outcomes have been found in several comparative, multiparty contexts, but very few of these systems use proportional representation. The few studies examining spending effects in multiparty elections have found that incumbent spending is no less effective than challenger spending, contrary to the vast bulk of empiricalliterature drawn from single-member district contexts. This study reexamines incumbent—challenger differences in spending effects under the single transferable vote. Examining the Irish general elections of 2002, the authors find a positive and statisticallysignificant relationship between spending and votes. Candidates that spend more win more votes, and outspending one’s rivals means winning more of the vote share. Spending more also directly increases a candidate’s chance of winning a seat. Finally, incumbent spending is considerably less effective thanspending by challengers from other parties but no less effective than spending by challengers from a candidate’s own party.

by Oisín Gilmore

GERMAN TELLS GREECE TO SELL SOME OF ITSELF

Came across this via The Cedar Lounge, this situation with Greece is getting more and more ridiculous. Now, some German government politicians are calling on Greece to sell off some of it’s Islands to finance its debt.

Greece should consider selling some of its uninhabited islands to cut its debt, according to political allies of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. 

Full story on the beeb.

by Oisín Gilmore

ANDREW GLYN

About 30-40 mins after reading Andrew’s thought provoking piece on the Better Questions series in Seomra Sproi, I was watching Tuesday’sDaily Show. In it they make an amuzing point that the recent credit card reform act in the US does little more than make credit card companies and the state than enforces it little more ethical than the mob. As the former mob loan shark says “We might have broken your legs, maybe pushed back your nuckles. You might have fallen down the stairs, accidentally. But if you didn’t pay, we never took your house. We never took your house.” Anyway, it made me think of how so much of the left in recent years will talk about everything apart from ‘the economy’. Andrew’s post drew me back to a post by Chris Dillow over at Stumbling and Mumbling where he says “I blame the 80’s”. In Chris’s post he gives an anecdote about the Andrw Glyn, the late Oxford economist. Dr. Glyn, who despite dieing 2-3 months before I discovered his writings, is something of an inspiration to me. Or perhaps it would be better to say an aspiration.

Anyway here’s the anecdote

 I remembered an exchange at Oxford in the 80s between Andrew Glyn and a whiney London woman. Andrew had just given a talk outlining a Marxist view of Thatcherism. Whiney woman: “Yah, Andrew. I agree with your analysis, but don’t you think we have to build a radical feminist critique?” Andrew: “No.”

by Oisín Gilmore

BIOPOWER

Andrew Flood posted Ronit Lentin’s talk on “Biopower, Race and State in contemporary Ireland” recently. Since then a few people have either said to me face to face or online that they don’t get the concept. I’m not sure that I get it either, but maybe its like Irony – impossible to explain but you know it when you see it. And I’m pretty sure this is it:

Workers judged to be lonely and to have a chaotic home life could be barred from working with vulnerable people, even though there is no evidence that they pose a risk, according to guidelines from the Government’s new vetting agency… If a teaching assistant was believed to be “unable to sustain emotionally intimate relationships” and also had a “chaotic, unstable lifestyle” they could be barred from ever working with children. If a nurse was judged to suffer from “severe emotional loneliness” and believed to have “poor coping skills” their career could also be ended.