Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Australia's politics academics should look at themselves before calling the IPA and CIS biased

By Chris Lewis - posted Friday, 27 May 2016


I am always amused when Australian academics display misguided confidence about their own abilities when criticising others who offer a different policy view. For example, Damien Cahill, who has long argued that centre-right think tanks were opposed to all things progressive (including trade unions and social justice advocates), stated in 2013 that the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) conducts policy and research work that is ideological, closed to alternative views, and limited in value because of its reliance upon corporate funding.

It is also rather fanciful to suggest that the IPA and Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), with their "same old prescriptions for deregulation, marketisation and small government", provide a relatively easy sparring partner for the left given "there is a willing audience right now for the message that inequality hobbles democracy and that everyone benefits when we limit the power of wealth".

By focusing on a very recent debate in the Australian Journal of Political Science (AJPS), the journal representative of the Australian Political Studies Association, this article calls on critics of the IPA and CIS to recognise the bias and poor scholarship of academia itself, in line with Gregory Melleuish's recent observation (AJPS 2015:719-734) that AJPS articles since 2000 "do not usually contribute to a narrative that sheds light on the larger, longstanding, structural issues of Australian politics".

Advertisement

While the response by Ariadne Vroman and Anika Gaujamade (AJPS 2016) to Melluish argues that the AJPS contributes a body of work that points to "structural and policy effects of neo-liberalism", a term used by academics to explain every perceived adverse policy trend since the 1980s, AJPS articles since 2012 hardly move beyond a centre-left bias to address the various strengths and weaknesses of different policy perspectives.

This is despite the post-2007 global financial crisis situation where Australia too has relied on growing public/private debt to fuel economic activity, a context where three prime ministers have been dumped by party colleagues since 2010 at a time when governments are struggling for viable policy options in a competitive international economic environment.

Of the 113 of 178 AJPS articles I observed that focused on Australian policy issues (see following table), there are very few articles that comprehensively address key economic policy issues.

On the one hand, Cahill (AJPS 2013:71-84) calls for a better conceptual framework definition to explain the influence of neoliberalism upon the Howard government, which included the marketization of unemployment assistance, expanding private health insurance and private education, the privatisation of Telstra, and the promotion of labour market deregulation. Cahill, having downplayed the role played by neoliberal think tanks, gives greater attention to the context of the day given that changing economic circumstances have resulted in different power relations between capital and labour to allow neoliberal ideas to flourish.

Defying such gloomy analysis of recent policy trends are a just a few AJPS articles. For example, Fenna and Tate (2015: 393-411), having examined 25 income trend and 17 wealth distribution studies of the Australian experience, conclude that "there has been far less of a rising inequality trend than is often assumed or argued". Fenna and Tapper (2012: 155-172), using ABS fiscal incidence figures for the period 1984 to 2004, previously challenged the view that Labor and Coalition governments had succumbed to neoliberalism as the welfare state had got larger despite bipartisan support for economic liberalisation.

Advertisement

But, in terms of comprehensively evaluating recent policy trends and what they mean for Australia's future in line with existing policy realities, hopefully by weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of different policy perspectives about what the extent of government intervention should be, the AJPS might as well not exist.

Take ongoing budget deficits, arguably the most important policy issue evident in Australian policy debate since 2012. The AJPS produced just two articles discussing budgets directly. Lukin (2015: 258-278), reviewing the budget speeches of Costello (1996–2007) and Swan (Labor 2008–13), notes how Costello's speeches were "singular, consistent and highly partisan" while Swan failed to project "an alternative, consistent narrative of his government's agenda and achievements". Walter and Uhr (2013: 431-444), examining the budget surplus debate during the Gillard minority government (2010–13) when the major parties competed for control of the voice advocating "responsible economic government", concluded that Labor lost due to its election promise to deliver a budget surplus by 2012–13 rather than pursue prudent macro-management.

Centre-left bias is evident in the AJPS on most issues. Of social welfare, Wilson (2013: 286-306) argues that Labor's social welfare spending from 2007 was hindered by tax revenue being too low despite the implementation of the mining and carbon taxes in 2012 and voter responses to an ANU Poll (September 2011) which found support from low-income earners and university-educated voters. Mendes (2015: 427-441), laments the failed efforts of ACOSS (2011–13) to have the rate of the Newstart allowance for the unemployed increased despite gaining outside support (policy reports, petitions, media releases, key interest groups and parliamentarians). Mendes declares that the Australian welfare state has a "historical preference for labour market engagement over broader social rights".

With regard to taxation, Wilson (2016:110-121) argues that higher levels would not reduce Australia's attractiveness for mining investment, as would be "partially offset" by its "non-interventionist" approach to resource policy and retaining good rankings on international political risk surveys. Cleary (2016: 150-162), by drawing attention to Norway's large sovereign wealth supported by very high rates of taxation on its resource wealth, notes that Norway's consensual approach to industry development and regulation contrast greatly with Australia.

Of productivity, promoted extensively since the early 1980s as part of microeconomic reform, Ferguson (2016:17-33) argues that there is "substantial evidence that productivity growth can have perverse socioeconomic and/or environmental consequences" and that this push "is driven more by neoliberal norms than socioeconomic necessity".

The AJPS also displays little discussion of the viability or practicality of the current industrial relations system.

But given that the current international economic environment makes demands on all nations with regard to issues such as taxation and labour market flexibility alone, good scholarship is hardly about ignoring centre-right views.

Quite simply, Australian politics scholarship must improve and address all perspectives if it is to gain greater policy relevance.

While Vroman and Gaujamade suggest that AJPS quality is indicated by citations and downloads, the simple truth is that few people ever read academic publications with a 2015 estimating that "85% of research in the humanities goes uncited and perhaps even unread by anyone".

So what is the key to effective scholarship? Bruce Cole, the former chairman of the US National Endowment for the Humanities, urges scholarship through books and articles to make wider appeal and "influence the movers and shakers who inform public policy". At present, scholars mainly write only for other scholars within their own subspecialties, a trend "exacerbated by the tenure review process" which usually "rewards peer reviewed scholarship".

As Cole highlights, whereas once academic scholars "were writing books that were well received and widely read by the general public", today such contributions are rare with journalists often penning "the books read by thousands of general readers" given that their books are both based on academic research and have compelling narratives "that people actually want to read".

At present, I am not sure whether the books offered by AJPS politics contributors offer much besides ongoing criticism of recent policy trends. For example, Cahill, in his 2014 book The End of Laissez-Faire? The Durability of Embedded Neoliberalism, called for the "decommodification" of recent policy trends by quarantining people's livelihoods from market dependence via a number of means that will help the needs of ordinary people. This included some nationalisation in response to ongoing privatisation; guaranteed minimum wage schemes; and direct state provision of services and various forms of social protection in areas such as finance, housing, education and healthcare which could be aided by taxing the surpluses circulating in the financial sphere of the economy.

While Cahill is free to offer such ideas, he also has a responsibility to demonstrate how such policies would be viable in a world where various liberal democracies have long promoted policies that accommodate both national and international policy aspirations through the promotion of freer trade alone.

In other words, opponents of recent trends cannot simply ignore international support for global economic governance, although they may argue that the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization merely serve the interests of the powerful. While the United Nations notes in Inequality Matters, Report of the World Social Situation 2013, while international income inequality has barely improved since the early 1980s when China's economic gains are excluded, the need for all economies to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy remains an important policy consideration.

In the case of Australia, while Treasury confirms that overall income inequality has also been rising in Australia between the mid-1990s and late 2000s (as in most OECD nations), it is also argued that "a more equal income distribution does not necessarily lead to a higher standard of living for any group in society, and rising or falling income inequality by itself cannot be categorically labelled as bad or good without an understanding of the underlying causes". Importantly, it is suggested that inequality measures must go beyond income to include "equality of access to health, education, housing and community safety".

Having said that, no can reasonably expect any scholarship to lead to universal agreement. There is simply no guarantee that scholars and students will agree to the same policy outcomes in a world where competitive realities remain evident over resources and ideas. As explained by Fish, while it has been argued that the neoconservatives may have downplayed their view of a good versus evil world if they had a more complete knowledge of history and human nature, they (Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kristol, Huntington) would have been as widely read in history, philosophy and the arts as anyone.

But, if the goal of university inquiry is to achieve the highest possible standard on behalf of the public interest, then the strengths and weaknesses of various policy perspectives must be evident with regard to any analysis discussing important policy questions.

In other words, by recognising the strengths and weaknesses of all policy perspectives, humanities analysis need not merely blame the media alone. For example, McKnight and Hobbs (AJPS 2013: 307-319), when examining the "mining tax ad war of 2010"', identify "advocacy advertising as an increasingly prevalent technique used by corporations and lobby groups to influence public policy in Australia" while demanding a "regulatory environment for such campaigns" and research "that might help to safeguard democratic practices".

In reality, as argued by Epstein, academics need to overcome "a considerable degree of intellectual autism" rather than blame factors such as "the economic crisis, the greed of corporations, the indifference of government, and shallow consumerism". Rather than look inward instead by choosing to deal with the texts of the past mostly through "criticism and deconstruction", a more engaging, relevant and future oriented humanities can have greater application to the real world.

My scrutiny of recent AJPS supports Melleuish's claim that recent AJPS articles "do not usually contribute to a narrative that sheds light on the larger, longstanding, structural issues of Australian politics".

Rather, I argue that the AJPS is hardly an academic publication worthy of reading with regard to anyone inquiring about the difficult policy questions of the day. It is a journal that mostly represents biased and narrowly focused scholarship that appeals to a like-minded and small audience hardly ever tested by public scrutiny.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Chris Lewis, who completed a First Class Honours degree and PhD (Commonwealth scholarship) at Monash University, has an interest in all economic, social and environmental issues, but believes that the struggle for the ‘right’ policy mix remains an elusive goal in such a complex and competitive world.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Chris Lewis

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy