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


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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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".

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 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