Professor Elinor Ostrom

By: Dr. Samuel Brazys

Professor Elinor Ostrom, the first and only female Nobel laureate in Economics died today at the age of 78.  Professor Ostrom, or Lin as she was known to colleagues and students alike, was an extraordinary scholar and a wonderful human being.  While many others can and will speak to her lifetime of remarkable achievements, I would like to share some simple thoughts on the ways in which I believe she has enriched our profession and our world.

Lin never accepted arbitrary boundaries in the pursuit of knowledge.  Despite her training at UCLA as a “rational choice” political scientist, Lin was part economist, part sociologist, part biologist, part agronomist, part historian, part philosopher and part cultural anthropologist; in other words, she was a complete scholar.  Lin transcended petty methodological and discipline divides because she recognized that one needs to be well-versed in all aspects of social and natural phenomenon in order to pursue knowledge effectively.

Secondly, Lin never accepted that there were boundaries to how well we can understand the world around us and our interactions in it.  Or, in other words, Lin continually pushed those boundaries.  Lin published more groundbreaking work after the diagnoses of her illness than most productive scholars will in a lifetime.  Lin continually sought improvement in theory, method and observation not for the sake of accolades and self-aggrandizement, but because it led to better scholarship.

Finally, Lin never accepted that there were boundaries to where one could obtain knowledge.  Lin’s seminars and lectures were not comprised of rooms full of starry-eyed students transcribing notes from a legend. Rather, they were a frank and open exchanges, in form though not in fact, of equals.  Despite all of her accomplishments Lin never took for granted that the next insight in scientific discovery might come from a Nepalese farmer, an Indianapolis policeman, or a first-year PhD.  While I can comfortably say that no great insight came from this particular PhD student, the dozens of her former students in excellent academic, public and private posts around the global is a testament to her ability to develop, teach, engage with, and learn from the other intellectually curious minds.

Lin’s loss is individually irreplaceable to the discipline and indeed the world.  However, if we collectively learn her lessons and adopt her thirst for knowledge we can continue to advance our knowledge of efficient and effective human management and governance in a world of increasing scarcity.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Time running out for the political reform agenda?

Post by David Farrell, June 2012

I have an op ed in today’s Irish Times about the (effectively) stalled political reform agenda of this government. The link is here. There can be no more prevarication. The government made a clear commitment and have an unparalleled opportunity to fix our political system. They need to get on with it.

Posted in Opinion/Debate, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is electoral reform ‘the solution’?

By: Prof. David Farrell

In today’s Irish Times, Dan O’Brien is back on his hobbyhorse pushing for electoral reform as a means of improving the calibre of our elected politicians.  The essence of his piece is that: (1) our politicians are sub-standard when compared with those in other countries and that (2) a big factor causing this is the poor ‘choice architecture’ offered to voters in an Irish election.  According to Dan, the unfortunate voters have to choose between poor quality, ‘fat laden’ candidate options.

The quick fix it seems is that we should replace our STV electoral system with the PR List system that predominates in Continental Europe, where as he puts it ‘the healthy options’ are put top of the menu of choice.

This is not the first time Dan has raised this point, and not the first time I’ve disagreed with his ‘analysis’. That last use of quotation marks is deliberate.  For someone whose discipline is so firmly rooted in the need for evidence-based analysis, there is a surprising lack of that here.

A few quick questions:

  • On what evidence, other than anecdote, can Dan demonstrate that our politicians are of a lower calibre than their counterparts in other countries?
  • In his ideal world, who determines what are ‘healthy options’?
  • How are these supposedly ‘healthy options’ selected?
  • And what about those List systems where voters can change the rank-order of candidates – the more common variant of the species of List?  What happens to the ‘healthy options’ then?
Posted in Opinion/Debate | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Freedom to be Poor

By: Dr. Samuel Brazys

Tomorrow’s referendum is an important vote for Ireland not only because of the immediate financial implications but also as a measure of the Irish commitment to the European project.  As an article in this week’s Economist makes clear, the way in which the current crisis is resolved (or not) will likely decide the future of the Union.  As commentators have been recognizing for some time the current crisis illustrates the difficulty in maintaining a monetary union without a corresponding fiscal, or “transfer,” union.

Transfer union implies two things – a redistribution of wealth and a loss of sovereignty.   While the former would almost certainly break in Ireland’s favor, at least in the short and mid term, it is the latter that gives so many people pause, and perhaps rightly so.  It is true that EU level decision making is largely insulated from public accountability.  However, the implication of this democratic deficit need not be “reject the EU” – the implication could instead be to strengthen the Union – not just economically but also institutionally.   A strengthened EU, with both direct fiscal powers and direct representation, would do much to alleviate the root causes of the current crisis.  It is true that in such an incarnation of the EU the sovereign power of Ireland would decline.  However, the monetary union, and probably the common market, are not likely to survive in the absence of these institutional changes.  The question then is not the stark “Is Ireland ready to sell her sovereignty?” but rather, “are the Irish people willing to be paid to transfer (at least a part of) their social contract from an Irish to a European sovereign?”  A significant indication of Ireland’s answer to this question will come at the polls tomorrow.  As John F. Kennedy once said, the cost of freedom is always high.

Posted in Opinion/Debate | Tagged , | Leave a comment