The expulsion of politics? What the UK’s Office of Budget Responsibility tells us about the limit...
When it comes to governing our economy, estimates rule the day. We want to know what effect a policy might have on the government’s budget, on economic growth, on employment…in the next 1 year, 5 years, 10 years…you get the idea. If you want to make (or critique) public policy, you better have numbers to back it up.
To get those types of estimates, economists and politicians often rely on institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility in the UK, or the Congressional Budget Office in the United States. As a result, their estimates and fiscal projections form crucial data points in our modern politics and policymaking.
We like to think that these estimates and projections (not to mention, the people who make them) come from somewhere outside of our partisan politics. That while our values might be debatable, the numbers, at least, aren’t.
But, as Mark Blyth’s guest on this episode explains: that idea is a fantasy, and to the extent it obscures the values and politics that are baked into organizations like the Office of Budget Responsibility, it’s a dangerous one.
On this episode, Mark Blyth talks with Ben Clift, author of “The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Politics of Technocratic Economic Governance.” In it, he pulls back the curtain on Britain's Office for Budget Responsibility, and reveals the hidden processes and ideologies that shape the estimates and projections that come out of it. In doing so, he shows how the OBR - and other institutions like it - are much more political than they appear.
Learn more about and purchase “The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Politics of Technocratic Economic Governance (global.oup.com/academic/produ...) ”
Learn more about the Watson Institute’s other podcasts (home.watson.brown.edu/news/po...)
Transcript coming soon to our website
Пікірлер: 9
This was a great video on the subject. Thank you.
Mark Blyth, kudos to you!
@tonywilson4713
19 күн бұрын
"Brexit. Fantasy economics meets technocratic governance!" That has to be the best description YET of that disaster.
The reality of the "climate crisis" is that you start with a critical equation. Multiply the number of electricity consumers by the amount of electricity demanded on average. Add a band up and down. Then factor in the metal and other resource needs necessary to provide this supply. If your aggregate energy and materials demand is very high and constant, you better be willing to allow hydrocarbons in your energy mix; this is especially the case if you do not have a nuclear energy supply. For the sake of the UK, please do not support "carbon neutral" practices. Instead, build out energy infrastructure that is cost competitive (within genuine reach). It is no longer value adding to say, "we have found that energy sources that do not rely upon combustion are valuable because we believe they do not impose as many external costs. Here is an extensive, panic-inducing list of current and future external costs if we cannot derive energy from non-combustion sources." Now, you either are PROVIDING non-combustion energy that meets the needs of the market (scalable and reliable 24 hours per day every day and actually affordable) OR you are a FEAR monger preying upon the young and vulnerable.
Any institution that grew out of the deregulation boom is inherently suspect
There's always politics involved, it's just a matter of how far away it is happening from actual democracy. When the Fed tells Congress to end the Capital tax strike, I'll take the politics of the economy a little less seriously. May as well let the Fed break up monopolies and police anti competitive behavior while you're at it. We have the market theories, if it were up to the intellectuals, the Fed could dial in whatever level of competitiveness and efficiency it liked!
@PolicyFailureIsExpensive
15 күн бұрын
I understand the desire for some body to be able to influence what could be seen as "monopolies" (specifically, structures you find harmful). However, I suggest this would not be the free market at all. It would be the use of government force (which comes from the threat of physical violence) to destroy the cumulative choices of the free market to eliminate your rivals. Policing anticompetitive behavior might be more appreciative of the free market, but it would depend totally on the specifics of such a practice; otherwise, this work will very quickly become the process of picking winners and losers via central planning.
@ywtcc
15 күн бұрын
@@PolicyFailureIsExpensive The whole point is to make things more efficiently, not to be polite. I think you're missing the point of a business. We're supposed to be making things ever more efficiently, not ripping people off ever more thoroughly. We can be better than that. Financialization and Maoism have the same effect. What do you think we're talking about when we say economy? It's really not the same as making money. What we're doing, ultimately, is identifying good for nothings that want to sit around, do nothing productive, and get paid for it. Call these people rent seekers. Your view of government and the economy is entirely toxic and unscientific. There's no getting government out of business, markets were created by a monopoly of force in the first place. Grow up and learn how to talk about business regulation like an adult.
This conversation is significantly better than most of our videos. More depth like this, and less whining like so many of your videos, please.