Posts Tagged Politics

European and Local Elections Tomorrow

Jun 3

Posted by Ken in Uncategorized

eu
Creative Commons License photo: loop_oh

European and local elections are tomorrow - please make sure you vote! The strength of our democracy is built upon participation and it’s your chance to have a say. It’s quite shocking just how low the turnout for European elections typically are, especially as over the last few years power has been moving from Westminster to Brussels - the European Constitution/Lisbon treaty being one example.

I think it’s especially important that people vote because the EU elections work on proportional representation which means it’s a lot easier for smaller, minority views to get represented.

Now, many people have told me that they aren’t interested in politics at all - they don’t know who to vote for. I recommend taking a short 5 minute test over at Euprofiler.eu. It takes only 5 minutes - answer a couple of questions and it’ll tell you how the views of the major parties align with your views.

Is it independent?
The EU Profiler is an academic project, unaffiliated with any party, candidate, government or branch of the EU. It has been entirely funded by the three consortium institutions - the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RCAS), part of the European University Institute (EUI); Kieskompas and the NCCR Democracy (University of Zurich/Zentrum für Demokratie Aarau)/Politools network.
The tool was designed in such a way as to allow complete impartiality. Information was gathered by respected experts in European politics and at no point were political parties in a position to influence the composition of either the tool itself or the information provided by it.

Tags:

No Comments

Are Particle Accelerators Worthwhile?

May 4

Posted by Ken in Science

In particle accelerators such as those at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland and Fermilab in Chicago, IL, scientists accelerate particles to high speeds with huge amounts of energy, colliding particles, to probe the building blocks of matter - the quarks, bosons, leptons, the neutrinos.

Just recently, scientists at the Tevatron in Fermilab, Chicago believe they have finally found the elusive Higg’s boson, the one member of the standard model of particle physics which, to date, hasn’t yet been found. The Higg’s boson is believed to be the particle which gives particles mass.

Large Hadron Collider

Right next to Geneva airport in Switzerland, sits CERN. It’s a huge particle physics research laboratory with a massive particle accelerator. CERN is funded by the 20 countries which are signatories of the CERN convention.

CERN 

The picture shows a circular ring which is the particle accelerator at CERN, and Geneva Airport is in the foreground. The Large Hadron Collider, as it is now known as is located about 100m underground and has a circumference of 27km. It even crosses the border between France and Switzerland; several times!

The Large Hadron Collider is set to go through engineering tests next month and to open later this year. It cost around $2.5billion USD to build. Considering that one of the reasons the LHC was built was to look for the Higgs boson, the Europeans will surely be pretty pissed if the Americans pipped them at the post with a fairly old piece of kit.

The Future?

Although the LHC isn’t even yet complete, scientists are already planning upgrades and improvements.

Physicists are already campaigning for a successor to the LHC - the International Linear Collider (ILC). The cost is estimated at $10bn with an aim to develop a Grand Unified Theory of everything combining the forces of nature: electromagnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces.

Is it worth it? 

Though I personally think it’s be great to develop a unified theory, I do wonder whether it’s worthwhile to spend $8.2billion on a particle accelerator. It might tell us a little bit more about why there is so much matter and so little antimatter around, and the conditions in the first seconds of our universe, right after the Big Bang.

But is there any use in knowing that? I certainly understand the desire simply to discover and to find out something, simply for the knowledge. But at the day, how do we benefit from understanding sparticles, muons or string theory?

At the same time, $8.2billion could do so much good elsewhere. Maybe we can develop treatments for cancers or AIDS, which could save millions of lives. We could find a solution for global warming: a problem which will affect each and every one of us, every day.

So I suppose I’d like to put out this question:

Is it worth pouring over $8billion into a project which ultimately will not lead to any practical benefit or technology? Should we be putting so much money into a new particle accelerator when we’ve just built one at great expense, even though it turns out that we may not have needed it after all?

Edit: This article originally incorrectly stated $2bn was spent on the LHC. The actual figure is closer to $10bn according to The Economist. 

Tags:

16 Comments

Getting an informed, balanced political debate about science

Mar 28

Posted by Ken in Science

What can be done to ensure an informed and balanced public and political debate of Science and Technology?

We're at the tipping point for climate change (bonus: face in the clouds)
Creative Commons License photo: kevindooley

The Oxford English Dictionary describes science as “…the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”1 But science is much more than that: most scientists enter the profession, and most scientific research is funded, because they believe science can greatly improve society. Usually, these goals of learning more about the world and improving society are coupled. However, new and cutting-edge research has been raising ever-increasing concerns about whether the research is benefitting or destroying society.

Scientists occasionally argue that their work should be judged on a purely scientific basis without consideration for the ethics and consequences of the research; but this neglects science’s responsibility to the community at large. As issues that affect all of us, it is important that a public debate is held about these topics and that scientists properly engage in it.

I believe there are three main barriers to a reasoned public debate.

Emotional responses blinding a scientific debate

In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of scientific controversies involving ethical issues of “playing God”. These include stem cell research, cloning and genetically modified “Frankenstein” foods. For many people, the initial emotional response is that of disgust2 - something dubbed the “yuk response”. In order to have the more productive debate about the science, consequences and ethics behind the work, we must get past this initial emotional response.

Surgeons at work
Creative Commons License photo: salimfadhley

In one study, psychologist Philip Tetlock asked people to comment on the proposal to set up regulated markets to trade organs3. For most people, the response was that of moral outrage at treating sacred body parts as secular commodities to be traded. However, when the debate was reframed to neutralise the moral outrage (e.g. by exploring how organ trading would lead to a greater number of scarce organs being available to save more sacred lives), 40% of people toned down their opposition. Neutralising the moral outrage encouraged people to critically analyse the arguments in the debate and come to a more reasoned decision.

On many scientific issues, the “yuk response” is preventing a reasoned scientific debate from happening in the first place. As scientists, we should not ignore our moral guidance, but we must not allow the debate to be blinded by it.

Ensuring the media covers the debate accurately

The media plays an important role in informing society about issues which may affect them7. However, two factors lead to poor and inaccurate coverage of scientific issues:

1.       To maximise readership, the press likes to present scientific issues as a series of horror stories. We’re told that cloning will lead to designer armies of obedient soldiers and that nanotechnology-robots will turn the entire world into a blob of “grey goo”45. These poignant scenarios lead people to make their mind up before considering the scientific uncertainties, risks and benefits to the detriment of a good debate.

2.       To provide “balanced” coverage, journalists will try to cover both sides of the story. In a political or social dispute, such as whether the UK should join the Euro, it is reasonable that both sides should be treated equally and receive equal press coverage. However, it is inappropriate to treat the arguments of both sides in a “scientific-fact” controversy as equal. For example, the weight of evidence in favour of climate change is much greater than that against. Attempts by journalists to be “balanced” and present both sides equally give an inaccurate impression that there is still a great deal of scientific controversy about climate change6.

The Louvre
Creative Commons License photo: L.Brumm Photography

Scientists should be aware of the importance of the media in shaping debate and public opinions and that communicating the science can be as important as the science itself.

Engaging the people: Capturing the popular imagination

Because of cultural differences8 between science and art (e.g. science being concerned with truth; art about opinions), scientists tend to avoid the arts. However, given debate is all about opinions, scientists should not be afraid to utilise the arts to catalyse debate about issues of scientific importance.

For example, Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” inspired a large amount of “real world” interest, television documentaries9 and archaeological research about the Holy Grail in Christian theology. In the same way, the arts can provoke discussion about important scientific issues10.

The arts will, of course, never replace the rigour of peer-reviewed papers and the scientific process; but as a complement can outline the major issues to the public in an interesting and engaging way without undermining the practice of science itself.

Conclusions

As science affects the whole of society, scientists have a moral obligation to inform, involve and engage the public in a debate about science. This should be achieved by focusing the debate on the important issues, ensuring they are portrayed accurately and inspiring discussion about them.

References

1.       Concise Oxford English Dictionary: Science
Online edition. Available from: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/science?view=uk. (Retrieved 1 March 2009)

2.       New Scientist: Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
Jones, D. New Scientist, issue 2690, pp. 22-33. Available from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126905.100-immoral-advances-is-science-out-of-control.html?full=true

3.       Trends in Cognitive Sciences: Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions
Tetlock, Philip E. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 7 issue 7, pp. 320-324. Available from:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/2001-2003/2003%20Thinking%20the%20unthinkable….pdf

4.       The Guardian: Brave new world or miniature menace? Why Charles fears grey goo nightmare
Radford, Tim. The Guardian, 29 April 2003. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/apr/29/nanotechnology.science

5.       Institute of Physics Press Release: ‘Grey goo’ misconceptions could harm poor in developing world
Institute of Physics Press Release, 27 January 2004. Available from: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-01/iop-gm012704.php

6.       The Independent: Reporters feel the heat over climate change
Ward, B. The Independent, 10 March 2008. Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/reporters-feel-the-heat-over-climate-change-793586.html

7.       Public Opinion Quarterly: The Agenda-Setting Role of the Mass Media in the Shaping of Public Opinion
McCombs, M. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 36, pp. 176-187. Available from: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/extra/McCombs.pdf

8.       The University Blog: Science vs. Art
Blog. 14 March 2008. Available from: http://theuniversityblog.co.uk/2008/03/14/science-vs-art/. (Retrieved 1 March 2009)

9.       Priory-of-sion.com: Da Vinci Code Documentaries
Website. Available from: http://priory-of-sion.com/dvc/documentaries.html. (Retrieved 1 March 2009)

10.   The Guardian: ‘Space flight can be as luminous as any novel’
Radford, Tim. The Guardian, 11 April 2008. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/apr/11/highereducation.comment

Notes

This essay was originally prepared for an essay writing competition at my college. I have decided to share it here as I feel it could be of interest to regular readers. Comments and thoughts very welcome.

Tags:

1 Comment

Could Free Starbucks Win the Election for Obama?

Nov 3

Posted by Ken in Science

barack obama
Creative Commons License photo: patrick dentler

The day of the US presidential election is approaching. There is an expected turnout of 80%. Both parties have worked very hard to register as many new voters as possible and companies such as MTV and Starbucks have been encouraging people to register to vote.

Starbucks is offering a free cup of coffee to those who vote on November 4th. How could this distort the results of the election?

Well, It seems pretty logical that the people who feel strongly about whether they are Republican or Democrat or have a strong preference for either Obama or McCain are the people who would vote anyway, regardless of incentives such as free coffee. So this promotion probably wouldn’t affect whether they would vote.

Swing and undecided voters, on the other hand, may not vote without an additional incentive such as free coffee. If, say, undecided voters mostly lean towards Obama - the incentive of free coffee at Starbucks would benefit Obama in the polls by encouraging the undecided voters to go to the polling station and to vote for him.

Two shots of espresso please!
Creative Commons License photo: aubrey arenas

It would certainly be an interesting research to see whether this promotion or other incentives may distort the results of the election. The “Starbucks Stores per Capita” differs immensely between each of the states. The District of Columbia for example has 1.18 Starbucks for every 10,000 people - nearly 22 times as many Starbucks stores per capita to Arkansas which has 0.054 Starbucks for 10,000 people. Swing state Virginia has the 11th highest “Starbucks per Capita” of the states. If the Starbucks promotion does have an effect on swing voter turnout, we would expect the biggest effects to be in a) the states with the highest concentration of Starbucks and b) cities (which are of course more liberal than small town America) where people are more likely to have a Starbucks nearby.

I’m exaggerating the effects of a free cup of coffee on the election results you say. Perhaps so. But research has shown it can be quite easy to “prime” people to affect who and what they vote for. For example, research found that people who used a church as their local polling station were less supportive of gay marriage.

Another piece of research looked at a 2000 ballot initiative in Arizona to increase spending on education:

The authors…divided the precincts between schools and non-schools, and found that voters who voted in a school had a marginal preference (3 points) for the initiative.

I am all yours...
Creative Commons License photo: HAMED MASOUMI

And when I spoke to some local activists for the Labour Party (UK) earlier this year, they suggested that the Gordon Brown calls an election before 2009. Not because they believe he is more likely to win: they believe that Gordon Brown losing the next general election is already a done deal. It’s because the local elections are also due to be held in 2009. And having the general election at the same time as the local one would mean Brown’s personal unpopularity would rub off onto the rest of the Labour party and their local councillors.

There are many subtle ways of affecting the results of an election. Could free Starbucks have a significant one?

Tags:

1 Comment

£100,000 - the real cost of going to university

May 27

Posted by Ken in Economics

nature x2
Creative Commons License photo: B a m s h a d

As a student currently embarking on a university degree, I’m looking forward to the freedom university will offer and meeting a whole bunch of new people from across the world. But one major worry is the finance: the cost of going to university.

Many people only look at tuition fees when they think about going to university. In the UK, university tuition is roughly £3,000 a year. For a 4 year masters degree course, this adds up to £12,000.

Tuition Fees: £12,000

 

But there’s the cost of accommodation, which is typically at least as large as the tuition costs. The cost of accommodation varies. In some of the larger cities, a room will typically cost £120/week. In some smaller town universities, £80/week might be closer to the norm. A 40-week let on university accommodation will set you back £4,000 a year. However, in later years of university, most students will live outside of university halls and this will be more expensive. Assuming an average accommodation cost of £4,500 per year, this adds up to £18,000 over a 4 year degree course.

Accommodation Cost: £18,000

 

sheffield, hidden sunrise
Creative Commons License photo: paolo màrgari

There is a much bigger cost which most people don’t even think about. Because studying at university and getting a full-time job are mutually exclusive options, by choosing to go to university you are actually saying “I will not be going to work” as well as “I will be going to university”. Economists call this the opportunity cost.

By choosing to study at university, you are foregoing 4 years of salary which you would have earnt otherwise. The typical starting salary for somebody leaving school with A-Levels but no university degree is £15,000 a year. By working, you’d potentially have earnt £60,000.

Opportunity Cost: £60,000

 

The other significant cost which needs to be considered is housing. Over the last few years, house prices in the UK have been rising by about 10% a year. What this means is that a house which will cost £100,000 today will cost £110,000 this time next year. Leaving university with £30,000 of debt and without £60,000 of salary means that university graduates must wait even longer before they can put together a deposit and get a foot on the housing ladder. On top of that, graduates may have to take out a larger mortgage on their first home because they cannot make a large upfront payment. Obviously, the appreciation in housing value depends on market conditions, but I think £10,000 is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

Housing Appreciation Cost: £10,000

 

So to sum it all up, when we take in all the costs of university:

£3,000 a year for tuition X 4 years = £12,000
£4,500 a year for accommodation X 4 years = £18,000
Direct Financial Costs: £30,000

£15,000 a year could have earnt in basic non-graduate job X 4 years = £60,000
Opportunity Cost: £60,000

House price rise in the additional time you must wait before buying = £10,000 (obviously this depends on whether house prices are rising)
Housing Appreciation Cost: £10,000

Total Cost of going to university: £100,000

It’s pretty depressing reading. University is a very, very expensive enterprise. It’s easy to see from these calculations why so many lower income families find it very difficult to send their children to university.

Flying Caps
Creative Commons License photo: Thiru Murugan

But I think it also calls into question whether it’s worth going to university to study certain degrees. According to the government’s graduate prospects website, graduates in humanities earn £51,549 more in their lifetime and graduates in arts earn £34,949 more. Are the real costs of going to university greater than the benefits?

On average for all degree courses, those who graduate from university earn on average £160,000 more over their lifetime. This would still seem to indicate that going to university is good value for money. But the net benefit is probably less than people would think.

I really don’t want to put anybody off studying at university and I don’t think money should ever stop anybody from pursuing their dreams. But what is true is that going to university is an extremely expensive enterprise these days and students may be getting a bit of a raw deal.

Tags: ,

4 Comments

Cuba the only sustainable developed country in the world

May 26

Posted by Ken in Economics, Environment

P9062903
Creative Commons License photo: Topyti

The World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet report (full report as PDF) is an interesting read. Page 19 of the report contains an interesting observation. The graph plots Human Development Index against Ecological Footprint.

The Human Development Index is the UN’s measure for standard of living and development. “Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide.” The threshold for acceptable human development is defined as a HDI of 0.8.

The Ecological Footprint measures the use of natural resources and effects on the ecosystem.

It compares human consumption of natural resources with planet Earth’s ecological capacity to regenerate them. It is an estimate of the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate (if possible) the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste, given prevailing technology and current understanding.

An ecological footprint of 1 means that if everybody in the world made use of resources in the same way as the citizens in this country, the Earth could just sustain it. An ecological footprint of 2 means two planet Earths would be needed to sustain this lifestyle if everybody in the world lived like this. Of course, if the ecological footprint is more than one planet Earth, this lifestyle is not sustainable.

The Car in front is a Desoto
Creative Commons License photo: Drown

As you’d expect, the two are correlated. The higher the standard of living, the greater the ecological footprint.

It’s interesting to note that the only country which is sustainably developed is Cuba. If everybody on Earth was to adopt the Cuban lifestyle, everybody would have an acceptable standard of living and we would be operating at 80% of our planet’s ecological capacity.

What this suggests is that if everybody in the world adopted the lifestyle of US citizens, we would need more than 5 planet Earths to sustain it. The USA is obviously appropriating well more than it’s fair share of natural resources.

Of course, I’m not seriously suggesting we all adopt Cuban laws and lifestyles but I think it’s a good way of visualising how sustainable the lifestyles of different countries are. Perhaps there are a few ideas we could adopt from Cuba though.

Tags:

2 Comments

The Problem with Fuel Taxes and Road Pricing

May 15

Posted by Ken in Economics, Environment

8th Ave .....Midtown Manhattan
Creative Commons License photo: 708718

Congestion and pollution are two “external costs to society” which are associated with driving. When you take your car out of the garage and take a trip down to the local supermarket or pick up the kids from school, you are imposing costs on other people: exhaust fumes which others must breathe and you take up space on the road contributing to traffic jams.

To correct for social costs, governments use taxes to make sure the individual pays for the costs they impose on society or to “internalise the external costs”. There are three taxes which are used to try and discourage driving:

  • VAT on Buying a Car
  • Road Tax
  • Fuel Tax

People hate taxes. People remark that death and taxes are the only two certain things in life and I think that fuel tax is one of the most hated (in the UK, fuel tax is 64p for every litre). The government argue that this fuel tax is to correct for “external costs” but I will argue that the fuel taxes is unfair and are targeting the wrong people.

The Costs of Driving

Comings & Goings
Creative Commons License photo: Pro-Zak

Urban motorists impose greater external costs on society. City roads are full to their capacity and that means traffic jams everywhere. An extra car on the road is only going to make it worse. Congestion wastes everybody’s time. Secondly, population density is so much higher in cities meaning that the exhaust fumes produced will affect a lot more people. And not to mention noise pollution…

In contrast, rural roads are much quieter and less congested. Because there is so much spare capacity on the roads, an extra car on a rural road isn’t really going to add to congestion or effect anybody else. And although exhaust fumes are still emitted and noise pollution is still produced, it effects a lot less people: there are less people for it to affect.

So the external costs imposed by drivers in cities are greater than the external costs imposed by drivers in the country.

The effects of taxes

Beijing smog
Creative Commons License photo: kevindooley

When you buy a car, you pay value added tax on the vehicle. To keep the car on the road, you must also pay road tax. Both of these taxes will discourage people to own a car because they increase the cost of owning one. But once you own a car and it’s licensed to drive on the road, these taxes will play no part in your decision about whether to use the car to drive to work or not: whether you use it or not you’ve already paid the tax. And whether you live in the city or the country you pay the same amount of VAT and road tax.

The other tax is fuel tax. This affects people’s decision on whether to drive to work or school. If it costs £2 to drive to work you might choose to do it every day but if it cost £8 you’d probably only drive if it was raining or for some reason the trains weren’t operating.

As I’ve mentioned, the external costs of urban driving are greater. So a fair tax which “internalises external costs” should penalise urban drivers more. But the taxes on urban driving are actually lower than taxes on rural driving. Places in the city are situated much closer to each another and so less fuel is needed to drive between them. As the amount of tax paid is directly linked to the amount of petrol used, this means urban motorists are paying less tax than rural motorists. This is unfair.

Is it essential to drive?

Il terzo occhio
Creative Commons License photo: fabbio

Another factor that economists must consider is “how necessary is it to drive?”

In the city, there are a huge range of alternatives to driving. In London, there is a flat rate 90p charge on all bus journeys, where ever in London you go. Buses are also very frequent: you shouldn’t have to wait any more than 10 minutes. I’ve found that I rarely have to wait more than a few minutes.

When I’m in the country, it often costs £3 for a single bus journey and the bus only comes once an hour or sometimes even every 2 hours. And there is about a 20 minute window for the time that the bus arrives.

In the city, everything is also much closer to each another. That makes cycling or walking a much more viable option.

So in the country there is often no choice except from to drive because everything is so far away from each another and there are no viable public transport options. In these areas, motorists must pay extortionate amount of taxes. Meanwhile urban city drivers, with the luxury of viable alternatives such as the bus, escape with lower amounts of tax. I think this is the fundamental unfairness of fuel tax.

Solving the problem

Sam Houston Tollway
Creative Commons License photo: billjacobus1

The problem is that fuel tax penalises the wrong people. The solution is to tax urban drivers more to account for the greater amount of “external costs” they impose by driving.

In London we also have the congestion charge zone (£8 to enter Central London per day) and the low emission zone (£200 per day for heavy polluting vehicles to enter London). I think this somewhat solves the issue but it’s only restricted to London.

A few years ago the Labour government floated plans for a national road charging scheme.

Motorists will receive regular bills, possibly monthly, charged at variable rates by time and geography: rural country lanes would likely be charged at the bottom of the range, around 2p a mile, with inner city rush hour roads attracting the top £1.30 rate. The government hopes motorists will change their driving habits - by staggering journeys, sharing cars or switching to public transport - to the extent that there could be a 50% cut in congestion.

From a point of view of an economist, I feel that this is the perfect solution to the problem. It would reduce congestion which would lead to time savings for everybody and stop country motorists from being unfairly penalised.

In 2007, 1.7 million people signed a petition against the national road charging scheme. The idea seems to have fallen from the agenda. Because of the inherent unfairness in fuel taxation, I hope the government will reconsider a national road charging scheme.

Tags: ,

2 Comments

Iraq War: $25,000 per US household

Mar 20

Posted by Ken in Economics

The Economist reports on a study by two economists on the costs of the Iraq War for American households. The study wasn’t simply a look through the government balance books to look for direct financial costs: it also looked at the knock-on impact on oil prices, number of deaths or injuries caused (and perhaps controversially putting a financial value on these lives), bonuses paid to recruits who were put off by the war and also the opportunity cost (see my previous post on cost-benefit analysis).

The opportunity cost is the benefits to the USA which would have been gained if it didn’t go to war in Iraq: for example the money which went to the war might have funded better education or healthcare insurance.

The study was carried out by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics and Linda Bilmes, budget and public finance expert from Harvard. They found the total costs were $3 trillion. The Economist asks:

SUPPOSE that, five years ago, George Bush had asked every American household to stump up $25,000 to pay for an imminent war on Iraq. How would they have responded?

Of course, this study doesn’t conclude that the Iraq War was a bad idea. To weigh that up, you need to look at the benefits which were gained. We now know Saddam doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Is that knowledge worth $3 trillion?

What I really want to get across is this: economics and cost-benefit analysis offers a much better way of analysing whether government policies have been successful. It’s great to have an opinion based on what is published in the media but things are not always as they seem. Cost-benefit analysis offers a logical method to evaluate the consequences of a policy.

Tags:

No Comments

Globalisation of Football

Mar 16

Posted by Ken in Economics

The British tabloid, Daily Mail, earlier this week published an opinion piece talking about the commercialisation and globalisation of football. The article highlights the performance of British clubs in the UEFA Champions League:

You may not have noticed, or even care, that out of the eight clubs that have just made it into the last round of the European Champions League, four are English.

That may not sound like a big deal.

But if one considers that clubs from dozens of European countries are eligible, and that these countries collectively speak for hundreds of millions of people, it is interesting that half of the finalists should come from a single country - England - with a population of only 50 million.

Germany has one team out of the eight, Spain another. Italy and Turkey account for the other two. (France, note, has none.)

It then goes on to talk about how football in Britain has been transformed in the last 25 years with higher attendances; racism has been stamped out; stadia are now state-of-the-art.

If that’s not enough evidence of the commercial nature of football, England’s failure to qualify for Euro 2008 is believed to cost the British economy £1billion.

My interest in football is only really a passing one but what I found really interesting was how this article looked at football from an economics viewpoint and then argues for protectionist policies.

To take some of the Daily Mail’s articles in turn:

Protectionism - Protecting British footballers 

In the same year that four “English” teams have made it into the last eight of the Champions League, England’s national team has failed to qualify for this summer’s European Cup.

The article argues that because so many foreign players are playing in British sides, British players never get the opportunity to reach the top flight. This is a parallel argument to trade barriers in international trade. Some countries argue that if they import lots of food from abroad cheaply, domestic farmers will never be able to develop and would have to shut up shop.

According to economics, protectionism is a very bad thing. Let’s take tea: in Britain we import our tea from countries such as India. Why? Because they’re better at producing tea. They can produce more tea, and sell it for less. We could impose some trade barriers and encourage British tea growers. But our climate and weather just don’t suit growing tea. So we use greenhouses and contribute to climate change and our tea costs more to produce. Or alternatively, we could stick to producing something that we’re good at (e.g. financial services). If we trade our financial services for tea from India, then both countries benefit.

Bringing this all back to football, does foreign players playing in British clubs really damage the chances of British footballers? I don’t think so. Football brings a lot of money into Britain; money which then goes towards academies and training for youngsters. A substantial number of young people in Britain do play football in their school breaks.

A loss of national identity

And yet this loss of local or even national identity in the Premier League is an extreme version of what has happened in our country. Mass immigration is justified on the grounds of greater economic efficiency. One consequence, though, is the weakening of a sense of belonging.

An interesting way of arguing against immigration, a favourite topic of the Daily Mail. But of course immigration has brought huge benefits for Britain. Migration-friendly policies mean that companies situating in the UK have access to the best workers from all across the world. These companies and workers contribute to the economy through taxation as well as greater efficiency.

Of course, there has been a homogenisation of city centres across the world. You’ll find a McDonalds in almost every large city across the world. But what is happening is that we’re all gaining from being able to experience more cultures. Visiting a typical city centre, you might have a choice of Japanese sushi, Italian pizza or American hamburgers. Are we really losing our identity or are we just benefiting from access to more?

The free movement of labour has also done wonders to for tackling world hunger and poverty. We might have nurses come to Britain from poor African countries; they earn money here and send it back home. They may, at a later date, take those skills home. Indeed, it is believed that globalisation and trade has done more for the third world than handouts ever have.

Similarly in football: who’d have expected some of the poorer third-world countries to participate in the World Cup? Skilled footballers playing for British clubs gain experience; this benefits their national side in the World Cup.

Globalisation is a win-win situation. It makes no sense to argue for protectionism: everybody loses out. That applies both to international trade and to football.

Tags: ,

No Comments

Anti-terrorism costs 10x the benefits

Mar 13

Posted by Ken in Economics

The Economist reports on a cost-benefit analysis of anti-terrorist spending. Economists at the University of Texas found that the benefits gained by tackling terrorism have been a tenth of the costs.

For those of us who don’t study economics of pretend to know anything about it, cost-benefit analysis is a method used to make decisions between competing choices, or to determine whether a decision was beneficial.

What is cost-benefit analysis? 

Let me indulge you with an example: The building of Terminal 5 at London Heathrow airport. When the government decided whether to build Terminal 5, they would have used a cost-benefit analysis.

The first step is to list all the costs: this would include the cost of the building materials and workers, upgrade to surrounding infrastructure and increased security. As well as the direct financial costs, effects such as greater noise pollution are quantified and someone must make a judgement - something like “the greater levels of noise caused to residents by Terminal 5 equate to £1bn of damage”.

After listing all the costs to society, the benefits to society are then listed. For Terminal 5, this would be time saved for travellers in airports, jobs provided to local residents and so on. After completing the cost-benefit analysis, we then look at whether the cost or the benefit is greater. If the benefits are greater than the costs, it is a good decision: if we spend £5bn and get a return of £10bn, we’re £5bn better off. But if costs are greater than the benefits, we are all made worse off by the building of Terminal 5.

Anti-terrorism

Economics lesson over… The study found the US has spent $65billion on homeland security since 2001, or $200bn if this is broadened to include the “War on Terror”. By my own calculations, that is $110 per person in the USA per year.

Anyway… the study found terrorism only reduced economic activity by $17 billion. So fighting terrorism cost $200 billion and only $17 billion of benefits were gained, the benefits are about a tenth of the costs. Or in other words, the country is $180 billion worse off.

The Economist adds:

In 2007 Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, said his country had disrupted 15 al-Qaeda plots since 2001. Yet so big is counter-terrorism spending and so limited is terrorism’s economic impact that, even if 30 attacks like the London bombings of July 2005 were prevented each year, the benefits would still be lower than the costs.

Now of course, there are a lot of criticisms to looking at anti-terrorism measures in such a way. Many people argue that the value of a human life is infinite or very high; it doesn’t matter if we spend millions to save a small number of lives. Additionally, there is the psychological effect: would we all be as happy as we were if the government did nothing about terrorism and just let it happen?

I think this study really highlights some great points. I feel that perhaps the government has been curbing too many civil liberties and freedoms lately under the guise of anti-terrorism measures. Take ID cards in the UK… very expensive, liable to data losses and presenting fairly small benefits.

I don’t think anybody should take this study to say that we shouldn’t try and fight terrorism, but perhaps, let’s reconsider just how we do it and make sure that we’re not harming ourselves more than the terrorists have.

Tags:

5 Comments