Año: 2009 Página 7 de 9

The cost of energy strategy

el 11/02/2009

Only two years ago, when the prices of oil rose faster than desired, no body rejected the need to move to other energy sources. Now, another consequence of crisis is a hard decrease in the oil prices and a new state of the art over the question. At this moment, it seems we have forgotten Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and we are fixing other priorities: looking for ways of saving in the energy bill and a revival of the economic nationalism also in energy matters. As globalisations is under scrutiny, governments are not very sure if their ‘friends’ in other countries are going to be willing to provide energy resources according to the free market fair-play. The last example of Russia cutting the gaz distribution in Central Europe shows the dangers of not being autonomous.

All these factor are contributing to open a new debate on the energy strategy. The ‘dammed’ nuclear energy is having a new happy life, policy makers are a bit more reluctant to the idea of quit oil dependency and governments are not so enthusiastic over the future of renewable energy. An idea is extending: the current energy mix is not so bad as we thought in the past and we have to take more care of our national resources because the invisible hand is on sabbatical leave.

One French think tank, Institut Montaigne, is leading a hard discussion in his country about the proper balance between the different energy resources. They maintain a controversial thesis: they try to demonstrate that France does not need to change its enrgy public policy in favour of renewable resources, mainly wind energy. They say that as his country has a high development in nuclear energy (a clean and cheap energy accordind to them), it is not necessary to make big investments in renewable sources. Analysts of Institut Montaigne argue in Pour rétablir la vérité sur le coût de l’éolien the renewable model can fit for countries that are not independent in energy terms or that have to reduce contamination, but it is not the case for France.

«En dépit des contre-argumentaires avancés par les professionnels de l’éolien
industriel, l’Institut Montaigne persiste et signe : l’énergie éolienne ne répond pas à
un besoin en France, étant donnée la structure de son parc de production d’électricité,
composé principalement de nucléaire et d’hydraulique, et, donc, particulièrement
sobre en termes d’émissions de CO2. Par ailleurs, la réalisation des objectifs du
Grenelle de l’environnement, à savoir 25 GW d’éolien installé d’ici 2020, se traduirait
par un surcoût pour la société de l’ordre de 2 à 3 milliards d’euros. Le développement
actuel de cette technologie s’explique uniquement par des tarifs d’achat garantis aux
producteurs par l’État sur 15 ans, tarifs particulièrement attractifs, financés par les
consommateurs d’électricité et qui permettent la constitution de « rentes vertes » dont
le bien-fondé est discutable».

This summary exposes correctly the content of the full report, in which the authors respond to the arguments of the French Renewable Energy Association, who was very angry with the first study the Institut Montaigne issued on the matter. I think it is a controversial position, but very effective if we are considering an economic and short term point of view. In crisis times, people take more care of money and pay less attention to other dimensions. I know that the issue faces numerous conflicts of interest. However, this is a good reflection on the future of energy public policies.

Conscious Consumers of public policy

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 09/02/2009

en Think Tanks

When I started to study the think tanks phenomenon, one of the first organizations I visited was the Social Market Foundation. It was and it is a small socialdemocratic think tank. At that time, one of its outstanding members was Robert Skidelski, biographer of Keynes. Mr Skidelski left the SMF but the project continued. It is not a famous institute like others in Westminster, but I believe it is doing a good job.

A good example of the right way they are following is one their latest publication, Assertive Citizens: New Relationships in the Public Services In this report they explain that citizens are adopting in politics a similar behavior they have as consumers. They are active, they do not agree with any proposal from the public sector if they think the service is poor or does not fit their expectations. The consumer’s revolution has brought one of the main changes in our democracies. Citizens have waked up to asking for a good quality of products and services they demand and companies have been pushed to respond properly to the new rules of commerce.

Members of SMF believe that the new conduct is not valid only for economic matters, but also for politics. Voters want to participate in the way public services are delivered.

«Public service users are now more aware of their rights, expect a better service, and defer less to established sources of advice such as professional opinion. This creates profound challenges for the relationships between the users of services ? pupils, students, patients – and providers, such as doctors and teachers».

The Social Market Foundation considers this movement is positive for the growth of democracy, although it increases the challenges for a good number of professionals, like teachers, doctors and other public servants. The new environment asks for a revision of relationships and implies to respect more the opinions of citizens. The think tank recommends to reinforce the work in several areas:

Better training for teachers on how to cope with assertive parents

Teaching young people how to get the most out of public services as part of the citizenship curriculum.

The establishment of a co-production fund to serve all public service institutions.

The role of professionals must change.

The report helps us to discover another way to balancing the power in democratic societies. If politicians do not take into account the new political behavior of voters, they will have difficulties to win elections and, after that, to stay in Government.

Conclusion of the Last Davos Meeting: nothing

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 08/02/2009

en Think Tanks

When antiglobalization movements started to attack the millionaires’ winter holydays in Davos, the managers of World Economic Forum launched a powerful propaganda and PR campaign(Is there any difference?) to show the supposedly gently face of capitalist bosses. It was difficult to believe, but the fact is the WEF quits his conspiration tank brand and adopted the form of a sort of celebrities event where rich and famous demonstrate a deep concern over the hot issues of the world. I remember Sharon Stone asking for instant pocket money to the executives because she wanted to end the African hunger in two minutes, or something bizarre like that. If in the first era they did not have credibility because it was an encounter to slice the world and make more money, in the second era the forum disguised in a Hollywood show: so many celebrities, hundreds of empty words and high-tech public relations.

This year Davos has suffer from the same problem fairs and exhibits have in the middle of a crisis: lack of interest. In the Forum case, people are not able to easily smile and citizens are not very happy witnessing the Vips Parade. It seems that as journalists and other followers of the event were so distrustful with the final results of the meeting and nobody has paid the huge attention it has in other times. Certaintly, the public relations machinery of de WEF has turned to use a lot of web tools, like webcasting and podcasting, and fans of Mr Schwab, Bono or Michael Dell can follow the activities without the media. But a think tank meeting is not a Madonna concert, even as Madonna could go. They need the collaboration of media moguls and media stars. You know we have celebrities for every need.

I do not think that the Davos meeting has given any clear key in economics or public policy in the last ten years. But in other editions, correspondents were fascinated by the powerful people the meeting could congregate. The less important thing was the value of ideas. We were living in the economic paradise and Davos was like the Winter Festival for the enjoyment of fat (now slim) capitalists . The rest of us contemplated the spectacle and dreamed on the possibility of being invited as a young leader or a flamboyant millionaire.

Sadly, the Fiesta is finished. Now we discover the real dimension of the Davos Meeting: nothing at all. At least for me when I examine, for example, the main conclusion of the Congress and do not find something really outstanding:

“We have to address all the issues simultaneously and not forget any of them, like climate change. We have to involve all the stakeholders of global society in this process so that they feel responsible. Above all we need to restore confidence in our systems.”

Brilliant for a meeting named Shaping the Post-Crisis World. A popular proverb in my country says that ‘Para ese viaje no hace falta alforjas’. Instead of giving common-sense receipts, it is better to be quiet, specially if you claim to represent the wise and powerful men. Antiglobalisation movement, please, stand up! We urgently need fresh ideas.

Tomorrow’s (Progressive) Capitalism

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 07/02/2009

en Think Tanks

It is clear to us. We are not happy of some consequences capitalism has on us, poor people, but we would not like to return to obscure socialism. Marx and Lenin and their colleagues are interesting icons for a fashion show, but no body wants to believe in the cruel utopy they spread. However, as greedy capitalism has shown its ugly face for another time and we are not comfortable with the acceptation of the ciclical crisis theories, it seems to be a time for new melanges. Another ‘new’ version of a third way? Of course! Coming from beauty British of the postmodern Gauche Divine? You are all right!

It is the case of the Londoner Institute for Public Policy Research, a rich progressive think tank which contributed a lot to the Giddens and Blair’s way. It does not matter that the New Labour has been a huge fiasco, that it was a sort of compassionate capitalism of highly rampant politicians. Really I have not seen any big difference with the traditional European politics, a bit more balanced than the American one. In fact, the New Laborism political platform has been also so unable to predict and face the crisis. And I do not want to remember the disgraceful conduct of British Premier in the War against Terrorism invented by the Texas presidential lobby. Now, when Mr Gordon Brown is fighting with the remains of the Blair glory days, there is no difference with the typical liberal short term politics of other right-governed countries.

But a selfish utopian never sleeps. Leaders of IPPR, a think tank very smart in propagating its messages, have launched a new iniciative, Tomorrow’s Capitalism:

«The Tomorrow’s Capitalism programme will examine prospects for the future of the economic system through the lens of progressivism and social justice, involving some of the world’s leading experts and thinkers. Our debates will bring together economists, business leaders, politicians, policymakers and commentators».

With this programme they are going to address questiones like the growing of income inequality, the downward pressure on wages, the impact of current economic activity on climate change and the growing economic power of China and others (And our own decline, I presume). I am not very confident of the results, but I agree with the need to look for an alternative model to make politics and having a healthy democracy. Middle classes will be happy to know if researchers and experts of this project find a way to relax the growing social and economic pressure they face in everyday life.

The revival of Hayek

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 06/02/2009

en Think Tanks

I understand that in crisis times, everybody goes to the essential ideas or the founding authors. In the case of political economy, we see an interesting battle between the Keynes and Hayek fans. One group tries to reinvent the Keynes principles on public sector to justify the bigger participation of the State, and the other returns to the Austrian intellectual to arguing against the renaissance of controlled economy.

In this context, the British Institute of Economic Affairs, one of the most aristocratic think tanks of the world, claims for a review of the Hayek’s philosophy of economics and the free market. In particular, it recommends to consider the arguments Hayek offered in his classical work The Road to Serfdom .

«Hayek argues that totalitarianism does not result from a dramatic or sudden change in the popularly accepted role of government. Rather, societies drift into totalitarianism as a result of a long series of seemingly minor, incremental expansions of government activity».

hayek People from the IEA think that the crisis opens the opportunity to a more powerful State and will damage the future of economy and even democracy if the public sector grows without control. They believe individuals are losing their freedom and depending more and more on the ubiquous State. Although every citizen feels free, at least in his private sphere, the reality is he has given his independency to the political system.

The IEA says that in the last decades we have seen an apparent balance between a strong public sector and the maintenance of civil rights and freedom. However, recent studies point out that

«In large parts of Britain the economy is now dominated by government: the proportion of regional GDP derived from state spending in Northern Ireland is now 77.6%; in Wales it is 71.6%; in the North East of England it is 66.4%; and in Scotland the figure is 60.3%. By comparison, spending as a proportion of GDP in Nazi Germany was 34% and in Mussolini’s Italy it was 31% (1937 figures, see here). This is not to suggest that these societies were in any way preferable to contemporary Britain, but it does show that in terms of the growth of the state parts of the UK are in unprecedented territory by international and historical comparison».

It seems that this situation is similar in other Western countries. But the perception general public has about the crisis is that it is has been produced because of the lack of public control of economic and financial activities. How to explain this paradox? The first conclusion we can draw is State intervention is not being efficient. The public sector is wasting its resources and it will need to spend more of our money to recover a confidence which it has contributed to destroy. At the same time, the misconduct of many economic and financial agents shows that the Road to Serfdom it is not either an easy way. As it happens always with the ideas of great philosophers, they offer an inspiration, not a practical solution.