Monday
There's a very important article in The Economist this week on the subject of Brussels-based think tanks. Under the headline The think tanks that miss the target, it says that Brussels' think tank world is failing to challenge the standard consensus. "Nobody seems able to change the default formula for Brussels policy seminars: good coffee and croissants, dull speeches and a brief exchange of conventional wisdom," it says. The article mentions free-market guru Johan Norberg who says that too many think-tanks spend their time offering straight commentary on the Brussels machine, whereas in Washington DC they tend to lead the debate.
The way I see it is that Brussels is a fledgling market. Just as there were think tanks in the US and UK before the 1970s, it was not until launches like the Cato Institute and Adam Smith Institute, both in 1977, and the takeover of the Heritage Foundation by Ed Feulner, that the modern think tank was created. By modern think tank, I mean the politically-savvy institute that does not just put out ideologically pure work, but engages in "policy engineering" (the development of practical policies) and the marketing of those policies in the political world. There were important institutes before then, such as the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in New York. But FEE is not the same sort of institute as Cato; it performs the essential task in educating students about free markets, but does not do the policy engineering work. People might label it a think tank, but really it is a different creature from Cato and Heritage. Indeed, it describes itself simply as an "educational foundation". In Brussels, the think tank world is going through the learning process that think tanks in the US and UK went through in the 1970s. There are not many Brits working for Brussels' think tanks, bringing expertise from the London think tank world, which may be part of the problem.
The Economist is right that the Brussels think tank world needs something of a shake-up. That said, not everyone is spouting consensus. I like the Centre for the New Europe, for example. It might serve good coffee at its events (none of the Traidcraft Fairtrade stuff), but I suspect that any exchange of conventional wisdom is brief indeed! Its blogs, on the topics of intellectual property, health and competition policy, are challenging and interesting. Additionally, the European Enterprise Institute has been particularly influential with the European People's Party and more generally in keeping the pro-enterprise agenda from dropping off the table. But it is certainly odd how few think tanks there are in Brussels compared with London. Brussels needs more. Well, free-market ones anyway.
The article is particularly interesting for me with my Globalisation Institute hat on. Many policymakers in Brussels have commented that while they value following the Institute's output on trade and globalisation from a distance, they would like access to the Institute's thinking and events in Brussels itself. Believing that responding to market signals is important, the GI is expanding into Brussels on 1 September. The aim is to inject some good free-market thinking into the city's European quarter. I think I'm going to have my work cut out.
Centre for a New Europe - that Tim Evens (or Evans - I can never remember the correct spelling of Dr Tim's name) used to work for, is one example of a free market "think tank" in the context of the E.U.
However, the article (as one would expect from the "Economist" - which, I notice, contained favourable reviews for several death-to-America books this week) misses the point.
The point being not to influence E.U. policy is such-and-such-a-way, but (rather) to deny the E.U. powers over these matters. It is not a matter of what the exact regulations the E.U. demands should be (the German government admits that 84% of new regulations are the result of E.U. demands) - but TAKING back powers from the E.U.
Like David Cameron (and like British politicians for decades) the "Economist" sees things in terms of "influence", whereas the business at hand is to take back powers.
The E.U. will never agree to a reduction in its own powers - so powers have to be TAKEN back. The Parliament of given nation should simply state "The E.U. no longer has any authority over goods or services produced for domestic consumption or for export to non E.U. nations", and (of course) the Parliaments should also declare "the E.U. has also claimed various other power not related to trade - these claims are formally rejected, this rejection is not subject to any European "court" or other institution".
"But if a nation said that such-and-such a matter is no longer an E.U. concern, the Union might be respond by expelling the nation concerned".
Good!
No free market person should be in favour of the extra layer of government that is the E.U. and any such person should welcome leaving it. As for trade sanctions against any nation that left the E.U. - this is hardly likely to apply to the United Kindom (considering the existing position of exports and imports).
Of course the "Economist" would never support taking back any power at all (over fishing or over anything) without the agreement of the E.U. - which is why the "Economist" (and those associated with it) can go to Hell.
Posted by Paul Marks at June 11, 2007 04:34 PM
Paul Marks claims The Economist "contained favourable reviews for several death-to-America books this week". It did not. It reviewed a couple of books that are critical imprisonment without trial in Guantanamo. Surely one of the most important aspects of libertarian thought is that people should have a fair trial.
Posted by William at June 11, 2007 07:35 PM
Alex, nice post! It is a pleasant change of pace to discuss something concrete--like an article in a magazine we all can access.
Perhaps the thrust of the article is on target. Just remember that American think tanks can produce as much barnyard merde as any group in Brussels. They, too, know who calls the tune.
Paul, when an American defense lawyer writes a book about the shortcomings of the kangaroo courts and secret prisons the US has instituted for terror, as reviewed in the latest Economist, he is not crying "Death to America." When a US citizen disagrees with the government and speaks up, he is exercising his First Amendment rights. He is not longing for a holocaust within his own country.
It has crossed my mind that you write this stuff while laughing like a hyena. Or are you actually unfamiliar with things like the US Constitution, Frank Capra movies, Norman Rockwell paintings, high school civics class? Criticism of our country is a celebrated right over here. It is considered patriotic to speak one's mind instead of taking the easy path of staying mum to avoid criticism of oneself.
Posted by Michiganny at June 11, 2007 07:56 PM
Whether or not the book featured in the relevant review was, in fact, a "death-to-America" book - I would just like to take Mr. Marks' side on the issue in general. The Eocnomist is the worst kind of anti-American rag: it pretends to be pro-America with a smile even as it levels its irrational insults. I much prefer the Rodong Shimmun's direct approach.
Posted by Joshua at June 11, 2007 09:03 PM
The man called "an American lawyer" above, is in fact a death-to-America fanatic who has opposed the United States in every dispute for the last several decades.
It did not matter what sort of person the United States faced (Marxist, militant follower of Islam, or whatever) the fact that they were enemies of the United States has always been enough to put this man on their side.
The other book was written by a former inhabitant of Gitmo - all of whose claims were taken as gospel (no anti Islamic point intended) by the Economist reviewer.
Many people have been let out of Gitmo - some of them have been picked up in various conflict areas again.
As for a "fair trial" - you write as if this was some sort of law and order problem, it is not. It is war.
In war an enemy who is captured out of uniform is executed. You will find that this is perfectly in order with the Geneva Convention that left libertarians put such store in.
If "torture" was ended and such places as Gitmo closed, the only practical alternative would not be "civilian trials and conventional prisons" (as you both seem to think), it would be to move to a "no prisoners" policy. I doubt that either of you would approve of that.
Nor is the matter anything to do with the Iraq war (I remind you both that I opposed the judgment to go into Iraq in 2003 - and was called a "racist" for opposing this judgement).
As for the article:
I made a special point of going to the library today to read it.
I should not have bothered.
It did not even oppose taxpayer funding of Euro "think tanks" (although it did mention that some people would doubt the idea) and mentioned George Soros as a person who was thinking of funding such institutions.
Overall the article was not "important", it was rather poor.
The E.E.C. - E.U. should not exist.
However, if it continues to exit the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should leave it (as should all other members).
It is a layer of government that the world would be better off without.
Posted by Paul Marks at June 12, 2007 05:24 PM
So the posting does mention the Centre for a New Europe (and there are links and stuff to the article - so I did not need to go to the library to read it).
Oh well, when someone mentions the E.U. and the "Economist" (two of my pet hates) in one post, the red mist is going to come down.
Posted by Paul Marks at June 14, 2007 12:27 PM
