Famine and Belarus

by Observer Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:30

Here is a link for John Lalor's excellent famine report.

by Observer Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:31

Here is a link for the Belarus report

by fisherman Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:58

Or did you just make that bit up yourselves?
Do you get thank you letters, you know and little hints in the media and politicians speeches for influencing the citizens? or do you just ask them over to listen to you and they make excuses not to come, coz you can't make a decent lentil soup?

by Michael Sun Jan 16, 2005 13:46

Sorry guys, your pro-"open door" immigration and pro-"freedom of speech" positions are great, but much of the rest of your stuff is looney.

by ZXBarcalow Sun Jan 16, 2005 20:06

Academics, before they release studies always submit them to their peers for review. Do the Freedom Institute?

This is an important question, because most "think tanks" don't, and this allows shoddy, politically motivated and dishonest work to go unchecked before uncriticised before it reaches the public.

Peer review is what sorts the honest researchers from the cranks.

So what's the answer guys?

by reviewer Mon Jan 17, 2005 00:05

ZX, has it occured to you that there may not be enough of them to operate a "peer review" system?
They are a small isolated group who are unwilling to consider other points of view and would be unwilling to allow "outsiders" to dissect their precious work. This of course reinforces their isolation.

by Professor Badman Mon Jan 17, 2005 01:41

It's complete crap. Full of very basic methodological errors. It would be laughed out of any academic journal or conference. It consistently makes extremely broad generalisations based on singular examples. It is full of consistently sloppy comparisons and patently stupid assertions. A good example:

"The policies towards agriculture in Tanzania (then, Tanganyika) in the 1960s and 1970s were identical to the Derg’s."

This short sentence displays several serious flaws. Most obviously, it is simply dropped in as an unsubstantiated assertion. Secondly it is plainly wrong. There are superficial similarities between the Derg's ressetlement programme and the Ujamaa villages that followed the 1967 Arusha declaration, but the similarities are VERY superficial. The funny thing is that the author puts this assertion only a few paragraphs before telling us that the derg's resettlement policy in Ethiopia was to de-populate areas of the North which had insurgent movements. Is the author really claiming that there was a previously unheard of rebel movement in Tanzania in the late 60's which prompted Ujamaa? Or is he just an eejit who has no idea how to do research?

Another glaring fault in this 'research' is the quoting of several chunks from similarly un-reviewed, papers by 'identically' out-there-on-the-fringes-of-sanity political think tanks as if they were undisputed fact. A good one:

"Finally, drought is too simple an answer to propose for this famine. This is certainly not a condition specific to Africa, and North America and Europe deal effectively with these problems. Writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, David Osterfeld explains:

The North American Great Plains has major droughts about every twenty years, the most severe being the 1934-36 Dust Bowl. A major drought was recorded in California in 1977 and the 1975-76 drought in England was labeled "unprecedented" in its severity. Yet none of these resulted in famine. In fact, the 1977 California harvest was a record high. And food production in England increased by 15 percent between 1975 and 1980."

Wow, two of the richest countries in the world, with extensive technology for storage of water and irrigation of crops have endured droughts without famines!! Ergo, a drought could not cause a famine in Africa!!

I don't know why I bother to read their drivel, maybe the professor in me just likes seeing how badly constructed research can be to cheer me up when reading my students' papers - maybe they're not so bad after all. The Freedom Institute at least has a consistent approach to research.

1. Write the conclusion (Socialism is the root of all evil)
2. Pick any historical event or current issue and extract some basic details about 'bad' things that happened. Then pick a few examples of anything that could be labelled as anti-free market. Write unsupported generalisations that link the few feeble facts to the entirety of world history.
3. Cut and paste a few chunks from a 'fellow-thinker' (We swear we're a reputable research institute so we'll give ourselves a fancy name type of thing).
4. Hey Presto.

Do you guys pay for these papers? If so, I can churn them out in my sleep. I've got one in the pipeline called "secret socialist influences in Irish Peasant society in the 1840's and their disasterous effect"

by PM Mon Jan 17, 2005 01:58

"Or is he just an eejit who has no idea how to do research?"
You have hit the nail on the head.

You must have a lot of patience, Badman. Most of us would not even bother giving the so-called 'freedom institute' the time of day.

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:05

Actually, research in an academic sense is not highlighted as a core action of this body, rather the creation of policies for the government to implement.

Peer review is neccessary for academic research, but the peer review of public opinion is all you need for policy suggestions,.

by ZXBarcalow Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:15

"one of Ireland's leading think tanks" eh?


Put the phrase "freedom Institute" into a google search (searching Irish sites) and see how many times it comes up.

Most of what comes up is the following:

1. Freedom Institute placing ads in college discussion forums

2. On Politics.ie

3. Something else called the "Minaret of Freedom Institute"

4. Or on irish gay websites (because the FI have an article calling for same-sex unions to be allowed)

-fair play to the FI on this last one, but all this is hardly indicative of "one of Ireland's leading Think-tanks" -more like a bunch of right-wing politics undergrads who want to seem respectable.


Oh I'll ask again: DO the Freedom Institute submit their studies for peer review? (its obvious i know, but i want to find out for sure)

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:20

I am not a member of the organisation, rather an observer, who believes that Ireland could do with more of these organisations, so as to encourage political debate outside of the electoral process.

I doubt that they submit their research to peer review, as they seem to do very little research, rather suggest policy proposals, which are not submitted by any organisation for peer review.

In fact their website does not, as far as I can see, claim to engage in research.


They seem to be largely a group of people in their early twenties, either Undergraduates, post-graduates or young professionals.

Anyway, what peers are there in Ireland for them?

by Badman Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:23

"Actually, research in an academic sense is not highlighted as a core action of this body, rather the creation of policies for the government to implement."

So, what you're saying is that you create policies _without_ doing research? You publish articles about the socio-political background of famines in the world where research is not a core action?

Have you identified any advantages of your approach over the traditional reliance on research? (or would that be too much like research to answer)

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:28

As I stated, Badman, I am actually not a member of the organisation.

However, I think ye are muddying the waters.

Articles in my experience which are submitted for peer review is generally based on a fair amount of individual independent research.

Policy making is generally taking other people's research, you own political inclinations, and the context of the time, and suggesting a policy.

There is a difference between academic research and policy proposals. I presume you are aware of that.

by ZXBarcalow Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:38

The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics defines think tanks as "Policy Research Institutions". So if it doesn't do any research, you cant really call the FI a think tank.

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:42

I am sure they research their policy. However, I doubt they undertake academic research.

There is a difference. POlitical parties undertake political reserach, it ain't academic. I am sure the FI are trying to do something similiar.

I welcome this inititative, and hope a few other organisations like this spring up, and offer different views. It will do no harm to have a real debate outside of the narrow consensus.

The FI is just starting off. Hopefully it will expand, develop more credible and indepth reports, and make an impact.

by Badman Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:48

"I am sure they research their policy. However, I doubt they undertake academic research."

So what type of research is it? astrology charts? tea leaves? treasure hunting?

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 02:54

Not all research has to be undertaken by blokes in TCD with PHDs.

Are you suggesting that research has to be of an academic standard to be worhty of consideration?

They suggest polcies, based on their own research.

The research is presumably not of an academic sort, but rather like the policy research of political parties. That is undertaken within a political framework and context.

Badman, surely it is better to have a debate in puiblic, rather than forcing everything to be 'peer reviewed' by academics? They are not publishing their material in academi journals, presumably because they are not doing academic work. Rather they are doing political work, basing their stuff on other peoples work.

What would you like to see them do?

Have every artcile on domething like Belarus peer reviewed by the UCD politics department?

by ZXBarcalow Mon Jan 17, 2005 03:27

"They suggest polcies, based on their own research."

I can read an article on ZNET sayin how Privatisation in Bolivia hurts the poor and then write a letter to Conor Lenihan telling him all about it but it hardly makes me a "researcher" -im just an ordinary guy with an opinion. That the FI have to dress themselves up as "spokespersons" for an "institute" reeks of elitism and self-importance.

I welcome the Freedom Institute's interest in promoting their own point of view, as the wider the realms of debate the better. But lets not be fooled by their attempts to seem all prestigeous -having a "Chief Economist", various "spokespersons" etc; and calling themselves a "policy institute".

They are merely a collection of like-minded people with an interest in politics who have formed a far-right advocacy group. Nothing more, nothing less. I could get a few mates, set up a website and hey presto, we're the "Justice Institute" or some such nonsense.

Nevertheless, let them play the academics all they like, its good to see people arguing about political ideas (even if their articles are often of 1st year politics essay standard).

"The research is presumably not of an academic sort, but rather like the policy research of political parties. That is undertaken within a political framework and context."

The problem is that they begin with their conclusion, then look for the evidence. This makes them of a lower standard than academic researchers. And comparing them to political parties is spot on -would you believe policy research officially carried out by the Fianna Fail Party? -I can see the headline: "FF research shows their policies successful"

"Badman, surely it is better to have a debate in puiblic, rather than forcing everything to be 'peer reviewed' by academics?

-The point of peer review is that it stops dodgy, politically motivated research getting into the public arena where it can influence the public debate without justification. A perfect example of this phenomenon is The Bell Curve, which claimed to prove that blacks were genetically less intelligent than whites -it is totally fraudulent, but the authors were funded by various conservative foundations so bypassed the peer review process. By the time it had been exposed as total rubbish by the academic community it had already irreversibly influenceed the public debate.

Thankfully, as a quick google search will show, the FI are nowhere near that influential, despite the hype.

by Observer Mon Jan 17, 2005 03:35

Nobody would think these lads were anything other than a political advocacy group, that is what they claim to be on their website.

They are just a group of individuals who have joined to gether to promote a view point, and their are at least fairly open and transparent about it.

You can easily see the bios of their authors, so you won't be led astray there, nor is there any mention of academic research on their website.

I say well done for the initative, and lets hope others follow them, and challenge them, rather than just engage in condesencion.

by ZXBarcalow aka Spokesperson on Defence 4d Justice Institute Mon Jan 17, 2005 03:47

I agree, fair play to them for bothering, and i look forward to more debate. Lets just not get too cought up in hyperbole about "One of Ireland's leading think tanks" or be overly impressed by their aims at respectable appearances. :)

by Bobo Sun Mar 13, 2005 20:39

ZX,

I'm interested in your idea about peer review for research. What do you think of the epistimological differences between researchers in the US and Europe? (assuming the same level of academic rigour)

by New Avenger Sun Apr 24, 2005 00:04

looks like your friend is stumped Bobo. I'll bet he doesnt even know the meaning of epistemology, let alone the various forms it can take. I wouldnt be holding my breath for them to come out with any research soon (although I hope to be pleasantly surprised)

by Ceist Mon Apr 25, 2005 04:51

This posting is announced as being related to ‘famine and Belarus’, a report which wasn’t that transparent to me because I can’t read pdf for reasons of visual impairment. I suppose that wouldn’t matter in FI terms, because that would make me (as a small minority) part of the non-market. What's wrong with some sort of open word format? I really am interested in stuff about Byelaru.

The report it seems, was a trojan horse to publicise the Freedom Institute.
If Badman is right, and the report is shoddy, then it is a legitemate target for being bought to our attention on the newswire in the first place. The style was unsuitable because the substance was found to be wanting.

However, neither should anyone hold too much store by academic research (and I presume here, we’re speaking about the humanities or ‘human sciences’). Foucault holds of psychiatry that ‘it is, necessarilly, a moral and political enterprise’. What have political scientists and economists ever done for us? They perpetuate the academic industry and their own inportance within it, because power is controlled knowledge.

In my experience, the Freedom Institute have been purveyors of nonsense, primarily because of their belief in perfect competition, but also because they have not withstood being challenged on facts.

Adam Smith wrote that the first thing any two businessmen will do if let, is to conspire against the public. Capital unfettered by the state is dangerous: and indeed, today, capital seems to own the state.

The state, which has become the bete noire of right-wingers such as the PDs, who would have it control only the punitive elements of society (self-fulfilling prophecy). Any further right of that is stronger money rule and further tyrany.

With good reason, anarchists on the left have seen how the state gets corrupted by power-hungry elites and capital – but they may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Where the people really control the state, and are their own government, with representatives recallable at any moment, then democratic planning becomes possible on a wider scale, andbecomes a better market.