I'd add to that some pretty serious thin market problems: we just don't have the think tank environment in New Zealand that is found elsewhere to help encourage academics to take on a more public role.The faint voice of academics seemed odd, especially in light of the Education Act 1989, which requires universities to "accept a role as critic and conscience of society". Bridgman found some reasons why: universities, made over by the market reforms of the 80s and 90s, did little to encourage the critic and conscience role; academics believed making regular public contributions would harm their careers; taking a public role was time-consuming, meaning less time for publishing research in academic journals, which are vital to career advancement.There were also concerns about being misquoted; fears that comments would be seen as a "dumbing-down" of academic knowledge; plus not having the skills to communicate with a wider audience. A common theme, says Bridgman, was the influence of the PBRF system and its bias against research on the New Zealand context, which is harder to get published in the higher rating international journals. In other words academics were, by and large, frightened, self interested and confined by oppressive research demands to their rarefied sphere of influence.Then there is the long Kiwi tradition of regarding the word "intellectual" as a term of abuse. In his essay The Public Intellectual is a Dog, Auckland University English Department lecturer Stephen Turner sums up the problem: "Just talking about public intellectuals make you, or rather me in this case, a wanker rather than a well rounded bloke." The British have also been bagging intellectuals for a couple of centuries, as Auckland University associate professor Laurence Simmons points out in his introduction to Speaking Truth to Power. It's a stereotype which says experience rather than abstract ideas, the supposed currency of intellectuals, offers the better guide to social and political practice.
In any case, of the 24 academics listed as providing expert public analysis on New Zealand's business climate, I'm the only one listed from the University of Canterbury. I'm a bit worried that the other hundred-odd academics in the College of Business and Economics know more about Canterbury's system of incentives, rewards, and (in the current environment of redundancies) punishments than I do.
I would have added Canterbury's Glen Boyle to the list of academics who speak on business. I'm also surprised that they missed Matt Nolan at TVHE in their list of occupational economists; he's done rather more than I have on topics around the financial crisis.
You're right they missed Matt, but I don't note any great shortage of academic views on issues of the day. The issue may be more about thin markets in specialisms, where we only have 0-3 experts on any one issue in NZ.
ReplyDelete@Dave: The go-to folks for radio, TV, and newspapers are almost entirely consultants and bank economists. Sometimes that's the right move: you won't find an academic worth a dime who's willing to read big portents from small moves in exchange rates, and there seems to be a big market for that kind of prognostication.
ReplyDeleteCount the number of times you hear bank or consulting economists talking on issues where an academic might be better suited rather than just the number of times you hear academics speaking. Note that the Herald's list is only on business and economic expert commentary.
"Bridgman found some reasons why: universities, made over by the market reforms of the 80s and 90s, did little to encourage the critic and conscience role..."
ReplyDeleteI well recall criticism of academia in the 1970s for not coming out and publically criticising the nonsense of the Muldoon administration. And it seems that the issue most pertinent to the people surveyed in the story reported here was PBRF, which came in under Labour after the reform period. How the reforms can then cop the blame for academics not playing their critic and conscience role is mystifying. Sometimes I think it is only a question of time before "the reforms of the 80s and 90s" gets blamed for the common cold.
And I suppose we ought add that one very prominent instance of Auckland's Economics Department making a public statement in 1991 was an embarrassment.
Delete"frightened, self interested and confined by oppressive research demands"
ReplyDeleteNyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
I think most academics are (a) not really interested or (b) lazy.
It comes down to a lack of incentive in many cases.
ReplyDeleteFor example who will be volunteering to take on the 3.8% minimum wage increase? Don't all rush.
Nobody wants to be public enemy #1.
:-)
Umm... I was drafting a post on it in my head while walking over from daycare to the office...now looking to see whether the Cabinet Papers are anywhere around. Was going to hang it around the excellent Ryan Avent piece over at Economist.
DeleteOf course there is the usual suckers for punishment.
DeleteFunnily enough, the section about academics commenting on topics outside their field of expertise mainly reinforced to me why I'd rather they didn't. Just to pick on one example: "Occupiers are concerned that after the series of financial crises beginning in 2008, governments and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund have chosen to rescue banks and finance companies while imposing austerity measures on pretty much everyone else." It sounds insightful, and there are certainly elements of truth... but what is the IMF doing in there? I'm fairly confident that the IMF has not bailed out a single bank or finance company, and the only people that they've imposed austerity upon are the national governments that have gone begging for a bailout themselves... from the IMF. This doesn't really sound like someone who's well-informed about the IMF; it does sound an awful lot like someone who's thrown them in there because it's fashionable in left-wing circles to portray them as the source of all eeeeevil.
ReplyDeleteIf there were more academics ready to comment on their area of expertise, we might hope that fewer would be asked to comment on areas outside of theirs. That's likely ridiculously optimistic though.
DeleteAnd another one: "In the midst of successive financial crises, the hand of the market still harvests wealth for the wealthy. While the richest avoid taxation, billions can be found to shore up the corporate sector, but not to deal with child poverty, third-world diseases, high rates of youth incarceration and suicide, and other indicators of suffering and failure." Nice evasive attempt with the sudden switch to passive voice - "can be found" - but please tell us, who is doing the "finding" here? It's surely not the markets you were talking about earlier. It's government at fault in this case, if I'm not mistaken?
ReplyDeleteI also think there's a point to be made about dealing with third-world diseases, but it escapes me for now. Something something Bill Gates something something wealthy capitalist...
... and that EBay guy... and that PayPal guy...
DeleteThere is a point there though about government willingness to engage in bank bailouts where there seem more worthy candidates. The rest, agreed, is dreck.
"There is a point there though about government willingness to engage in bank bailouts where there seem more worthy candidates."
ReplyDeleteYes, but you can pin it on fairly mundane reasons: any government that let banks fail, and told the public to brace for a painful but necessary adjustment, could expect to be slung out on their ear. No need to debate the soul of capitalism here.
The New Zealand Government would not have fallen had they kept the finance companies out of the deposit guarantees scheme. And we'd be far better off. (fist shaking at Michael Cullen)
Delete