Is HEA using OECD for return of college Fees?

national | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Monday February 16, 2004 18:21

by Grudge Report

The drop in CAO numbers was reported on the front page of last Wednesday’s Irish Times. However it only briefly mentioned that the OECD is currently working on a report of the third level sector here. What it didn’t mention though was that this was at the behest of the Higher Education Authority. Also going unreported is the fact that the OECD heaped praise in a report (following an IMF heaping similar praise) upon Blair’s top up fees in January. I wonder if the HEA and the Dept of Education are expecting an OECD change of heart, in regards to it’s future report for our colleges?

These two institutions are not impartial they are "neo-liberal" or even "dogmatic", given that both the IMF and the OECD have a view of the world that was forged in the inflationary 1970s and has remained unchanged ever since. These institutions were long ago seized by those who believe as a matter of ideology that low tax economies are superior to high tax economies, that the private sector is to be preferred to the public sector, and that any government which pursues an alternative agenda is heading for inflation and bankruptcy. But what they fail to recognise is that counter-cyclical fiscal policies have contributed to Britain’s that superior performance. Keynesian (Franklin D Roosevelt/Hugo Chavez style) economics has worked.

Yes I can see it now the minister of education, propped up by the HEA clutching the OECD’s “impartial” not at all at all one sided report and how we have no choice (very democratic) but to follow it’s direction to bring back college fees (and possibly privatising some colleges and I Ts) or our third level sector will just explode.

See below for a Guardian article on the OECD’s British third level top up fees praise and how it sees, hears or speaks no Keynesian economics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1127538,00.html

And pasted below,

Pssst! Don't mention JM Keynes

OECD hasn't spotted his influence yet

Wednesday January 21, 2004
The Guardian

Last month it was the International Monetary Fund. This month it is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development saying rude things about the government's spending plans, issuing doom-laden warnings about how Gordon Brown's profligacy will end in tears.
In the press, these reports are normally graced with the adjectives "authoritative" or "influential". A better description, however, would be "neo-liberal" or even "dogmatic", given that both the IMF and the OECD have a view of the world that was forged in the inflationary 1970s and has remained unchanged ever since. These institutions were long ago seized by those who be lieve as a matter of ideology that low tax economies are superior to high tax economies, that the private sector is to be preferred to the public sector, and that any government which pursues an alternative agenda is heading for inflation and bankruptcy.

So, before we are tempted to take the latest warning too seriously, it is worth putting up the other side of the argument. First, the investment in the public sector is long overdue and desperately needed. And it's starting to work. Second, the investment has been good for the economy. The IMF and the OECD have been lavish in their praise of Britain, noting it has grown more quickly than other European economies. But what they fail to recognise is that counter-cyclical fiscal policies have contributed to that superior performance. Keynesian economics has worked. Finally, the UK's fiscal balance sheet is healthy enough to take several years of budget deficits. The debt to output ratio is low, and there is not the slightest risk it will rise above the government's 40% ceiling.

One area in which ministers will no doubt welcome OECD intervention will be the support given for university top-up fees. They should beware, since this is a classic case of Greeks bearing gifts.

To be sure, the thinktank likes the idea that students should pay more towards the cost of their courses, but it clearly thinks that once the principle is established in higher education it can be extended to other areas of the public sector. If it is right to have user fees for universities, the OECD sees no logical reason why they should not be applied to those who want non-generic drugs from the health service. This is the thin edge of a very fat wedge.