Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

NESC???

  • 19-08-2010 01:01PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭


    There was an opinion piece from this NESC crowd in the IT yesterday - can't find it online today. It was a summary of 'The Euro, An Irish Perspective 'which is available here http://www.nesc.ie/

    I read through the summary twice and it was full of gibberish policy speak that meant nothing to me, but it prompted me to wonder who the hell this NESC is. There purpose is:

    The function of the Council is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) on strategic issues relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice and the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of relations and negotiation of agreements between the government and the social partners.

    More policy gibberish, but the bit that I do understand is 'efficient development of the economy', I have no idea what anything after that actually means. Anyways says me, this is the crowd that is telling Cowen how to develop the economy. Must be full of economists!

    Quick perusal through the site throws up the usual bearded brethren, numpties from IBEC (plus one Tom Parlon - wtf relevance the building industry has to ireland for the next 5 years is beyond me), pile of government department heads, people involved in doing 'good' such as Sean Healy etc etc.

    So I am scrolling and scrolling and eventually lo and behold there is a couple of academics, one from Queens University with a BA in Politics (??) and FINALLY one Sean Barret, a bona fide bloody economist.

    Honest to god - if this is the advice Cowen is relying on for "efficient development of the economy" he may as well stay in that mobile home of his for a few more years!


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Sounds like a classic irish 'committee'. After all it's not what you know....

    I seem to remember reading that there is only 1 person working for the department of finance with a PhD in Economics. Stuff like that will get you to the top in some other countries but unfortunately in a lot of our state institutions other factors are more important.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Yes, I was struck by the existence of this panel given so many have called for a council of independant economic qualified advisors to evaluate the fiscal and economic situation and act as a brake on politically populist moves by politicians. Why reinvent the wheel when clearly this NESC was already in place?

    Oh right, its just a jobs for the boys council, simply recycling the same tired ideas that already inform government policy. Whilst charging the taxpayer extra for its very existence.

    Id still be in favour of the formation of an actual independant (i.e. practically adversarial) council that would evaluate fiscal policy, but lets face it - this talking shop would continue in existence either way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Has any of our commentariat any real idea of what NESC does? It has, over a long period of time, published some high-quality research which was generally intended to be useful in the formation of policy. [Whether the political establishment made good use of their work is another matter. I believe that the research was useful, but much of the value of NESC's work is like the portion of the iceberg that is below water.]

    You might note that the staff includes a number of PhD holders, several of whose specialism is economics: http://www.nesc.ie/organisation/default.asp?zoneId=5&catId=24

    To get an idea of the questions they tackle, see their publications list: http://www.nesc.ie/publications.asp


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    The National Economic and Social Council was established in 1973. The function of the Council is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) on strategic issues relating to the efficient development of the economy and the achievement of social justice and the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of relations and negotiation of agreements between the government and the social partners. The Council is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach and contains representatives of trade unions, employers, farmers' organisations, NGOs, key government departments and independent experts.

    From their own mouths, theyre a talking shop, a group of insider establishment types from the "social partners" mafia determining how to carve up the fatted calf of the taxpayer.

    You point to their publications as a measure of success. :rolleyes: Lets instead look at the bottom line - the economic and fiscal policy they informed and advised upon. Either they were influential and thus incompetent, or they were qualified and clever, but without any influence on policy.

    Either way theyre as useless as a one legged man in an arse kicking contest


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Sand wrote: »
    From their own mouths, theyre a talking shop, a group of insider establishment types from the "social partners" mafia determining how to carve up the fatted calf of the taxpayer.

    They don't describe themselves as a talking shop, and your claiming that they do is quite a distortion.
    You point to their publications as a measure of success. :rolleyes:

    No I don't. I point to their publications as an indicator of the type of question they deal with.
    Lets instead look at the bottom line - the economic and fiscal policy they informed and advised upon. Either they were influential and thus incompetent, or they were qualified and clever, but without any influence on policy.

    A false dichotomy.
    Either way theyre as useless as a one legged man in an arse kicking contest

    You give me the impression that you know just about nothing about the NESC, but that you want to attack them anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    They don't describe themselves as a talking shop, and your claiming that they do is quite a distortion.

    They do ("function of the Council is to analyse and report..."), though Im sure they like to think theyre a really valuable and useful talking shop. Everyone is sure there are efficiencies to be found in the Civil Service and various quangos....but no one can find them in their own areas.
    No I don't. I point to their publications as an indicator of the type of question they deal with.

    Do you have a measure of success for them? Something suitably low that even they can meet?
    A false dichotomy.

    Not in an enviroment where we are shipping 20 billion a year and are badly short of competent economic planning to get out of it. Im sure though, in the Civil Service and quangos where the gravy train is still rolling, where money can be spent with no expectation of results or effectiveness, it might seem like a false dichotomy....
    You give me the impression that you know just about nothing about the NESC, but that you want to attack them anyway.

    Intriguing, you give the impression that you reflexively defend the NESC on the basis of....well, youve not offered any measure of success or effectiveness for them so I suppose you could think they havent failed. If theres no measure of success for them, then they cant fail can they?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Sand wrote: »
    They do ("function of the Council is to analyse and report..."), though Im sure they like to think theyre a really valuable and useful talking shop. Everyone is sure there are efficiencies to be found in the Civil Service and various quangos....but no one can find them in their own areas.

    Analysing and reporting is largely done in a very formal way by highly-qualified researchers. The council itself functions more like a management committee.
    Do you have a measure of success for them?

    I have, in the past, used some of their material, and found it good and useful. I do not propose to set out evaluation criteria here, as it would be largely a waste of time.
    Something suitably low that even they can meet?

    And that is one reason why it would be a waste of time.
    Not in an enviroment where we are shipping 20 billion a year and are badly short of competent economic planning to get out of it. Im sure though, in the Civil Service and quangos where the gravy train is still rolling, where money can be spent with no expectation of results or effectiveness, it might seem like a false dichotomy....

    So you want to scrap them and throw out some highly-qualified policy researchers without actually knowing much about the work they do?
    Intriguing, you give the impression that you reflexively defend the NESC on the basis of....well, youve not offered any measure of success or effectiveness for them so I suppose you could think they havent failed. If theres no measure of success for them, then they cant fail can they?

    My defense was triggered by my perception that the attacks, including yours, seemed not to take any account of what the NESC actually does, how it approaches its brief, or to to take account of how well it might do it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    So you want to scrap them and throw out some highly-qualified policy researchers without actually knowing much about the work they do?

    I don't care how people build chocolate fireguards, or whether they are in the top 10 chocolate fireguard builders in the world. These points are irrelevant if the the chocolate fireguards appear to be of no benefit.
    My defense was triggered by my perception that the attacks, including yours, seemed not to take any account of what the NESC actually does, how it approaches its brief, or to to take account of how well it might do it.

    It doesn't matter how they approached their brief if their brief is a sham. I think that is the feeling of most here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    I'd started another thread inspired by the same report which didn't go anywhere, so I might as well pitch in here.
    I don't care how people build chocolate fireguards, or whether they are in the top 10 chocolate fireguard builders in the world. These points are irrelevant if the the chocolate fireguards appear to be of no benefit.
    I'm inclined to agree. In any event, NESC is part of that whole Social Partnership-style approach that hangs out of the Taoiseach's Department. That's really where our national consensus has been brokered for the last couple of decades - a consensus that agreed we should walk blindly off a cliff.

    Also, NESC's line in this report seems to amount to giving up any hope of us domestically agreeing on a strategy. They're basically saying we should just blindly follow Europe. That might be ok, in that its not as if our own policy generating bodies (including NESC) have been capable of generating such a strategy.

    But that surely poses the question of why do we even try. If NESC, and its forgotten twin NESF, were abolished, would anyone notice?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭Ostrom


    I have found most of their output typically uncritical and conservative - though i must admit i have read relatively little. My most recent exposure (sitting on my desk now for some reason) was their shockingly poor exploratory 'policy recommendation' report on mental health in the workplace (2009). A study of the simplicity i would expect of a first year undergrad, despite their supposed expertise and resources.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @P. Breathnach

    You seem to come from a school of thought where justifications must be found for not funding a talking shop, as opposed to the school of thought where justifications must be found for funding it. Where results are not required, just intentions. A career in the public sector beckons I think.

    We cant consider it a success in terms guiding or informing the economic and fiscal policy pursued, because that policy has been disastrous.

    We cant consider it a success in terms of the research released, even you say as much.

    On what terms can we consider it value for money?
    So you want to scrap them and throw out some highly-qualified policy researchers without actually knowing much about the work they do?

    Were in an enviroment where we are shipping 20 billion a year. Im a taxpayer, and I operate on the principle that I want to see my money well spent. Yes, I want to scrap them and their overpaid policy researchers on the grounds neither their research nor their policy is worth paying for. Feel free to point to some justification, *any* justification for why they shouldnt be cut loose...

    Theyre a useless talking shop full of "social partners" insiders and they ought to be cut and you cannot point to a single reason to why they should be retained.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Sand wrote: »
    Lets instead look at the bottom line - the economic and fiscal policy they informed and advised upon. Either they were influential and thus incompetent, or they were qualified and clever, but without any influence on policy.

    Well the possibility exists that the NESC could have been "qualified and clever, but without any influence on policy" over most of the last decade due to the politicans feeling they could do no wrong when it came to the economy.

    Now that they have woken up to the realisation that they (i.e. the politicans) were asleep at the wheel, they could be paying close attention to the NESC's advice. Thus, the NESC could now be managing to be both "qualified and clever" and influential.

    The worth of the NESC is something that really only be judged by the report's intended recipients. Either they find them useful or they don't. If not, the politicians still need to make cutbacks...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Sand wrote: »
    @P. Breathnach

    You seem to come from a school of thought where justifications must be found for not funding a talking shop, as opposed to the school of thought where justifications must be found for funding it. Where results are not required, just intentions. A career in the public sector beckons I think.

    We cant consider it a success in terms guiding or informing the economic and fiscal policy pursued, because that policy has been disastrous.

    We cant consider it a success in terms of the research released, even you say as much.

    On what terms can we consider it value for money?

    Were in an enviroment where we are shipping 20 billion a year. Im a taxpayer, and I operate on the principle that I want to see my money well spent. Yes, I want to scrap them and their overpaid policy researchers on the grounds neither their research nor their policy is worth paying for. Feel free to point to some justification, *any* justification for why they shouldnt be cut loose...

    Theyre a useless talking shop full of "social partners" insiders and they ought to be cut and you cannot point to a single reason to why they should be retained.

    The core of your argument seems to be that you have decided that NESC is useless without actually knowing much about it.

    In support of your argument you use disparaging language, you have a go at me, and you misrepresent my position (bolded passage) in order to try to make a cheap point.

    Your position does not look to me like thoughtful criticism, and I don't think it merits the effort involved in preparing a considered reply. Further, the tone of your posts suggests to me that a considered reply would be batted aside without much reflection.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Sand wrote: »
    A career in the public sector beckons I think

    He is retired Public Sector
    View wrote: »
    Well the possibility exists that the NESC could have been "qualified and clever, but without any influence on policy" over most of the last decade due to the politicans feeling they could do no wrong when it came to the economy.

    Now that they have woken up to the realisation that they (i.e. the politicans) were asleep at the wheel, they could be paying close attention to the NESC's advice. Thus, the NESC could now be managing to be both "qualified and clever" and influential.

    The worth of the NESC is something that really only be judged by the report's intended recipients. Either they find them useful or they don't. If not, the politicians still need to make cutbacks...

    The NESC are probably speaking up now trying to justify their existence. They are probably afraid they will get Quangoed in the near future.
    The core of your argument seems to be that you have decided that NESC is useless without actually knowing much about it.

    In support of your argument you use disparaging language, you have a go at me, and you misrepresent my position (bolded passage) in order to try to make a cheap point.

    Your position does not look to me like thoughtful criticism, and I don't think it merits the effort involved in preparing a considered reply. Further, the tone of your posts suggests to me that a considered reply would be batted aside without much reflection.

    So you don't have any reasons or justification why they should be disbanded. I Thought as much


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @P. Breathnach
    The core of your argument seems to be that you have decided that NESC is useless without actually knowing much about it.

    The core of my argument is that they are a useless quango of social partner insiders who have delivered no return in terms of the policy pursued and in the current enviroment, they are a luxury we can no longer afford.

    The core of your argument is "You wouldnt understand..."
    In support of your argument you use disparaging language, you have a go at me, and you misrepresent my position (bolded passage) in order to try to make a cheap point.

    Your position does not look to me like thoughtful criticism, and I don't think it merits the effort involved in preparing a considered reply. Further, the tone of your posts suggests to me that a considered reply would be batted aside without much reflection.

    I admire your stern and proud stance of not actually advancing a single reason for why taxpayers money should be wasted on this quango, of not descending to the level of being forced to defend this waste.

    I stand ashamed of daring to question them and their existence in light of nobody be able to advance a single measure by which they could be considered a success.


Advertisement