Not that we shouldn't be cautious, of course. I think I'll go wash my hands.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
I am irrelevant.
At least that’s what Joseph Nye says, who happens to be an influential Harvard University professor and Dean, and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. According to Nye, political scientists are increasingly becoming more and more irrelevant to the policy-making world. In an opinion essay published in last week's Washington Post Nye opines that political science academics are too interested in jargon-filled mathematical models, new methodologies and theories that are unintelligible to most policy makers. To write articles on policy issues is not only unrewarded in most political science departments, but can also be the kiss of death to aspirations for career advancement. Few academics serve in policy making positions. Academics have only themselves to blame if their ideas have little impact on the policy world, Nye says.
Well, yes and no.
First, I’d like to suggest that there are in fact some ways that political scientists contribute to policy debates in ways other than publishing research on policy issues. First of all, we teach students policy relevant topics. We don’t just teach theory, we also teach policy, current events, and most importantly, critical thinking and writing skills that (we hope) transfer to the job market and citizenship at large. Political scientists are also frequently called upon to comment to the media, give talks to audiences large and small, host and participate in debates, usually on policy-related issues. We prognosticate, debate and try to guess the motivations of leaders’ moves on the chessboard. Much of what we do other than research is quite relevant to Washington.
Also, it is important to note, that not all research needs to be (or should be) directly policy relevant. The value of research should not be measured by purely instrumental means. That was the entire purpose of academia – to provide a place where academics can pursue the study of some things deemed without value by the free market economy – like the study of philosophy or literature – but that a civilized society believes should be pursued for its own intrinsic value.
In my opinion, comparative politics theory is just plain interesting, but the study of labor relations is not. Is one more important than the other? The “soaking and poking” involved in getting to know a foreign country intimately is enormously fun! It can also provide a lot of the background knowledge necessary to form some of the “expert” opinions about a country or region. Policy analysts actually need that sort of information.
However, on the whole, Nye is correct in his assessment. It is an uncomfortable position to be in to be told you and your line of work is “irrelevant.” Even worse, to largely agree. Even though most jargon-filled articles have some degree of relevance to the real world, that relevance is often tangential. The greatest measure of the worth of research, in most academics’ eyes, is its contribution to “theory building.” Admirable, yes, but overblown in importance by far.
And to fight against that tide is a losing battle. Particularly as junior faculty. One must follow the “dominant culture” for the most part, if one is to get tenure. Play the game, play well, and play nice. This means many things, but in research it means careful attention to theory more than policy relevance.
This problem has been discussed before (see Larry Diamond’s article here, and Robert Putnam’s APSA address here), but it seems that changing the dominant culture is like turning a gigantic oil tanker on a dime. Change must be initiated by a critical mass of the “powerful” in academia, a trend not likely to appear any time soon.
I’m not one of the powerful. The revolution will not start with me.
Psychologists call it "attention-seeking behavior." I call it damn annoying. I can't get a moment's peace in my own house because of my kids' boundless energy. All kids have energy compared to us old folks, I know, but with my kids, the spark plugs fire double time.
Six years after the first bombs fell on Baghdad on March 19, 2003, the United States still finds itself enmeshed in Iraqi violence and politics. More than 4,000 US deaths and countless (and uncounted) thousands of Iraqi deaths later, billions of dollars spent and political capital lost, the US may finally be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I usually write about international politics, but with the AIG bonus scandal dominating the headlines, I can't help but sound off. Congress hauled AIG chairman Edward Liddy in for a ritual flaying, though they were probably barking up the wrong tree. He was the poor soul hired to fix the mess at AIG and is working for a dollar a year. Nevertheless, public outrage was boiling over, and Congress had to vent. And vent it did:"Do you have anything to say for yourself?" Lynch asked.
"I take offense, sir, at the use of --"
The congressman cut him off. "Well," Lynch said, "offense was intended, so you take it rightfully."(from Thursday's Washington Post)
Fallout from the bonus scandal has revolved around who knew what and when about the paying out of these bonuses. Congress is heading towards taxing the bonuses at something like 90 percent, spooking much of the financial sector in the process. But nobody is talking about the real scandal, the creation of the huge bubble in the financial sector by letting loose risky financial instruments in the market - completely unregulated. This is what led to the downfall of AIG in the first place. And now Congress claims innocence and outrage! But there are Congressional fingerprints all over this crisis.
The origins of the crisis can be found in the deregulation movement of the last 30 years. In particular, the Greenspan era was a time of pressing for deregulation of financial markets. After financial interests spent at least $5 billion lobbying Congress, a number of bills were passed overturning past regulations and prohibiting regulations on securities and derivatives. The fact that Congress felt the need to exempt these instruments from existing gambling and "bucket shop" laws suggests that there was an understanding that these financial instruments, which in fact resemble bets and led to the 1907 panic and stock market crash because of widespread speculation, are risky and illegal.
At the heart of the matter are mortgage securities and credit default swaps, a form of derivative (a financial instrument whose value is based on something else. It's basically a side bet) in which one "bets" on the success or failure of an enterprise, and pays out if it fails. (For great discussion of credit default swaps, see this article, and this two part series.) It acts as a form of insurance, but it isn't called insurance, or it would have to be regulated. Insurance providers are required to set aside a certain amount of money to cover potential losses, but in the case of swaps, there is no such requirement. As a result, when the market for mortgage securities began to perform poorly as the housing market fell, the credit default swaps backing these securities had to pay out. But the investment houses selling the swaps didn't have the money to pay off the obligations. They couldn't cover their "bets." AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan all fell victim to this problem.
Complicating matters is the fact that credit default swaps are not tracked - no one knows how large the market is, who owns them, what they cover, or if the money exists to pay them off. This uncertainty is part of the problem contributing to the banking crisis and putting a price on "toxic assets." Without transparency, people and institutions are reluctant to make transactions when there is a possibility that the "bets" won't be covered. As long as everyone paid their obligations, the system worked. Now no one wants to do business with one another for fear that the money to pay obligations won't be there later. Banks won't lend to one another, or to us, the average person. The bubble has contracted, but no one knows exactly how far.
So I don't share Congressional outrage - I am outraged at them for letting this happen to us. To me. And for hypocritically venting public rage on an issue so trivial as $218 million in bonuses, when the economy has lost billions of dollars and governments are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to jump-start our economy. And for diverting our attention from the real issue, fixing our economic and financial system so that our economy can grow again, safely.
Posts
All Comments
