Archive for the 'Policy & Politics' Category

Policy Press April ‘editorial picks': Politics

Continuing our new series of monthly ‘editor picks’, and with our focus very much on the election it makes sense for our Politics Senior Commissioning Editor Emily Watt to tell us a little bit about her background, what she’s most excited by in upcoming Politics titles and why she feels certain New Zealand will win the Rugby World Cup this year…

Policy Press - 013Name: Emily Watt

Title: Senior Commissioning Editor

What’s your background story?
I have been at Policy Press for just over 10 years, which is still hard to believe, working my way up from Editorial Assistant in January 2005 to my current role as Senior Commissioning Editor.

About 4 years before this and about a year after graduating from Lancaster University with a BA Hons in American Studies, I went travelling with my best friend for 15 months to the US, Australia and South East Asia. I didn’t really know at this point what I wanted to do, so I was hoping this trip would enable me, in true clichéd style, ‘to find myself’. It was an amazing experience, but it didn’t get me much closer to a career decision.

When I returned I found out that one of the friends had just completed an MA in Publishing at Oxford Brookes and then the penny dropped, I suddenly knew this is what I wanted to do! My Mum had also done copy-editing and proofreading and worked in magazine publishing, so publishing had always been there in the background.

One year of study later, during which I worked part-time at Berg, I finally got my qualification and, just as importantly, was put in touch with Alison Shaw, the Director at Policy Press. While back in Bristol, I wrote a letter to Alison to ask if she had any work for me. The rest, as they say, is history and I haven’t looked back since.

What does your role entail and what do you enjoy most about it?
As a Senior Commissioning Editor and manager of the Commissioning Team, my role can be really varied. For example, one morning I can be reading and feeding back on new book proposals, planning for the next conference or campus visit, preparing paperwork for our next Acquisitions Meetings or sending out referee comments or contract offers. By the afternoon, I could be reviewing the Team’s budget, analysing the commissioning targets to feed into plans for the following year, or attending a cross-team meeting.

I really relish balancing such a variety of tasks in any one day and being able to challenge myself to think through problems and make swift decisions. I enjoy managing the team, but my real passion is commissioning and being able to see an early idea start from a conversation I had at a conference to becoming a finished product. This gives me great satisfaction.

What most excites you about your subjects?
I look after a good range of subjects including Politics, such as Public Policy, Social Policy and Welfare, Social Geography and Urban Studies and Housing and Planning and although they interlink, I like that the books I work on can be so different in scope.

I am particularly engaged in areas of my list that have a social justice or equality angle, that challenge current thinking and push the debate forward and which truly bridge the gap between theory and practice. Great recent examples of this are ‘Making policy move’ by John Clarke, Dave Bainton, Noémi Lendvai and Paul Stubbs, which is out this month, ‘New philanthropy and social justice’ (part of our Contemporary issues in social policy series) by Behrooz Morvaridi and Julian Dobson’s campaigning book ‘How to save our town centres’.

What key things are happening in Politics at Policy Press this year?
You could argue that everything we publish has a relevance to politics and policy, but in Politics we started the year off well with the release of a new trade book by Peter Hain MP entitled ‘Back to the future of Socialism’, which is a real boost to our Politics list. Written by a former Labour MP, who was in the Blair and Brown Cabinets, Peter’s book revisits the classic 1956 work by Anthony Crosland and uses it as a springboard for putting forward his political prospectus for today. The book, pitched at a wide readership, is a real boost for our Politics list and makes for an academically engaging and personal read, one that I think is very important given the public’s growing disengagement and disaffection with mainstream political parties.

Another important book that has just been released as a paperback is ‘Women of Power’ by Torild Skard which charts an impressive 73 female presidents and prime ministers worldwide over the last 50 years. Based on an astounding amount of research by the author, the book looks at these women’s motives, achievements and life stories in politics and it is a must read for anyone interested in gender, politics and leadership.

There has also been some excellent content on key political issues published in the latest issue of our Policy & Politics journal. I was particularly drawn to ‘the politics of quangocide’ from Katharine Dommett and Matt Flinders and ‘Governing at arm’s length’ by Catherine Durose, Jonathan Justice and Chris Skelcher. The journal co-edited by Sarah Ayres (Bristol) and Matt Flinders (Sheffield) is a leading international journal in the field of public policy that importantly prizes itself (as Policy Press does too) on bridging the gap between theory and practice and linking macro-scale political economy debates with micro-scale policy studies.

Our new Policy Press Shorts are an ideal format for Politics given that the subject is so fast-moving and topical. Being able to offer flexible publishing options has opened up new opportunities in all our subjects and the Policy Press Shorts have a 12 week turnaround from delivery to publication. They are an excellent outlet for publishing original ideas quickly and making a difference in a concise and accessible way, ideal for politics.

One great example is a Policy and practice Short entitled ‘Battle of the Bedroom tax’ by Dave Cowan and Alex Marsh which publishes just after the election. The bedroom tax was a key and highly contentious policy and one which could slip down the political agenda depending on who gets in power in May, so having the Short out quickly so that it hits the right political moment is key.

What interests you particularly about Politics?
The key issues that interest me in Politics at the moment are political disengagement, devolution and a shift in power from a Westminster-centric view and the ongoing debates related to independence and the decline of mainstream political parties in favour of more extreme parties, such as UKiP (there is much more to be said here!).

I am also keen to commission more politics books in areas we are known for and which are continually on the political agenda. This includes political issues for disadvantaged groups, such as those in poverty, older people, disability and gender and books that push the boundaries and put forward radical and fresh perspectives.

What reading book is currently on your bedside table?

I’m reading The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt that was chosen by our very own Victoria Pittman for book group. I really like what I’ve read so far, but I have a feeling the book will be by my bed (or on the bus with me) for a while!

Laura Vickers led the editorial picks in March – what would you say is her secret superpower/thing she is most awesome at doing?
Her sheer determination. When she puts her mind to something she doesn’t give up and makes sure it gets done even though it might be really challenging along the way or take a long time.

Laura’s question for you is: Who will win the Rugby World Cup?
This question from Laura is a not a surprise as she is a massive fan of rugby and most sports. I have absolutely no idea how to pick a team to win the World Cup, but I will base it on a place where I have always wanted to visit – New Zealand.

What question would you want us to ask our next editorial interviewee?
Who would be the 4 best/most influential people you would have dinner with and why? They don’t all have to be alive!

If you enjoyed this blog you might also enjoy….

Policy Press March ‘editorial picks': Environment and Sustainability

Policy Press February ‘editorial picks': Criminology and Criminal Justice

Related reading

Policy Press CoverMoney and electoral politics by Johnston and Pattie

There are fewer people registered to vote in 2015 than there were in 2010: is that to Labour’s advantage?

Policy Press authors and academics Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie have teamed up with David Rossiter to write a recent LSE General Election 2015 blog There are fewer people registered to vote in 2015 than there were in 2010. We were fascinated to read about the discrepancies in voter registration between this election and the last one, especially as we have been supporting the Bite the ballot campaign, encouraging people to register to vote. Here is their post reblogged in full…

AuthorsThe 2010 general election result was considerably biased in Labour’s favour: if they and Conservatives had won equal shares of the vote total, Labour could have obtained as many as 54 more seats than their Tory opponents. This bias partly reflected unequal electorates across the country’s constituencies.

Recently published data show that the number of registered electors nationally has since declined. But is Labour’s advantage still there? Ron Johnston, Charles Pattie and David Rossiter analyse those data and show that, unless the Conservatives win a lot of seats from Labour on 7 May, if the two parties are roughly equal in their number of votes Labour could again benefit from the inherent biases in the electoral system, perhaps by as many as 30 seats.

All UK general election results since the 1970s have been biased, favouring Labour over the Conservatives – bias being defined as the difference in the number of seats each would have gained if they had equal shares of the votes cast. If that had occurred in 2010 – with votes distributed across Britain’s constituencies in the same proportions as the votes actually cast – Labour would have obtained 54 more seats than the Conservatives.

Pro-Labour bias

Several factors create this pro-Labour bias; the most consistent have been differences between constituencies won by the two parties in their average electorates and turnout rates. Small constituencies can be won by fewer votes than large ones; so can those with low turnouts compared to those with high. The mean electorate in Conservative-won seats was 72,304 in 2010, but 68,672 in those won by Labour; average turnout in those two groups of seats was 68.2 and 61.2% respectively. The former difference was worth 18 seats to Labour in the total bias of 54; the latter was worth 31 seats.

The Conservatives tried to remove the impact of differences in average electorates: the 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act required all constituencies to have electorates within 5% of the national average by the time of the 2015 general election, and the Boundary Commissions’ revised recommendations for new seats applying this rule would have removed any pro-Labour bias. But the redistribution was aborted, the Liberal Democrats voting with Labour and against their coalition partners to delay the redistribution until 2016, in retaliation for the lack of progress on House of Lords reform.

But has that difference in mean electorates been reduced, if not eliminated, by changes since 2010 in the distribution of the electorate across Britain’s 650 constituencies? Labour’s advantage over the Conservatives was a consequence of:

  • Smaller constituencies on average in Scotland and Wales (65,234 and 58,627 electors respectively) – where Labour won 67 seats and the Conservatives only 9 – compared to England (average 71,918), where the Conservatives won 297 seats to Labour’s 191;
  • A decline since the constituency boundaries were defined – using data for 2000 in England and Wales, and 2004 in Scotland – in the average electorate in seats won by Labour (most of which are in urban areas) compared to those won by the Conservatives.

In general, Labour won the smaller constituencies and those with declining electorates: they needed fewer votes to win there than did the Conservatives in the larger constituencies and those with expanding electorates.

As the 2015 election is to be fought in the same constituencies as 2010, these differences presumably remain in place – and might even be exaggerated, thereby enhancing Labour’s advantage – which could be crucial in determining the largest party in a close-run election. But has there been any clear pattern of change over the five years?

The Office of National Statistics recently published the number of registered electors in each constituency in December 2014 (except that the Scottish data will not be available until May 2015). These will not be the final figures at the 2015 election, because enrolment is open until mid-April, but comparing them with those for December 2009 (before the 2010 election) provides insights on trends since then. (For Scotland, we have had to use the 2013 data.)

“…there are as many as 1 million new ‘missing voters’, joining the several million who were not registered before 2010″

Across Britain, despite overall population growth in recent years, the average constituency electorate declined by 228 individuals – in part because a large number of people have moved home but not registered at their new address (especially young people who were registered as students but have since graduated and moved away): others qualify to vote but have not registered (again, many of these are probably young people). The Electoral Commission estimates that because of these patterns there are as many as 1 million new ‘missing voters’, joining the several million who were not registered before 2010.

Electorate 2009The first graph shows a very strong correlation between each constituency’s electorate in 2009 and 2014 – the overall pattern of constituency sizes has not changed – but with one very clear variation: average electorates declined in both England and Wales (by 558 and 888 respectively) but increased by 2,669 electors in Scotland (no doubt reflecting Scots’ keenness to vote in the 2014 Independence Referendum).

There were considerable variations around these averages, however: 286 constituencies experienced an increase, 158 of them by more than 1,000 electors; 346 experienced a decline – 213 of them by more than 1,000 electors and 96 by more than 2,500. Have the declines been concentrated in Labour-held seats, thus increasing their advantage over the Conservatives? Or has the recent population growth in many UK cities diluted the pro-Labour bias?

Electorate Average constiuencyThe answers – as illustrated in the second diagram – are yes, but only slightly to the first question, and thus no to the second. Only constituencies won by the SNP in 2010 have, on average, increased in size. The mean electorate in Conservative-held seats declined by 224 between 2009 and 2014, compared to 1,179 in Labour-held seats (despite the growth in Scotland where it holds 41 seats).

The difference between the two parties’ mean electorates was 4,016 in 2009; in 2010 it was 4,101. Thus if the Conservatives and Labour each won the same seats in 2015 as 2010, Labour could anticipate a favourable bias of some 18-20 seats if the parties have near-equal vote shares because of this factor alone.

An unlikely outcome

That is an unlikely outcome, of course. Labour’s initial strategy for 2015 targeted 106 seats. If it won them all, and all other seats stayed with their 2010 winner, the average Labour constituency in 2014 would have 68,098 electors and the average Conservative constituency 72,810 – the gap would be 4,712 electors, and the pro-Labour bias probably larger than five years ago. (The 106 seats that Labour would win – 89 of them from the Conservatives, 12 from the Liberal Democrats, 4 from Nationalist parties and one from the Greens – had an average electorate in December 2014 of 68,682.)

On the other hand, the 40 seats that the Conservatives have targeted as potential gains – 32 from Labour and 8 from the Liberal Democrats – averaged electorates of 67,475 in 2014. If all were won, the average electorate in Labour-won seats would be 68,112, whereas in Conservative-won seats it would be 71,442, a slightly smaller gap between the two of only 3,330: there would still be a pro-Labour bias, but reduced because some smaller constituencies had crossed into the Tory camp.

The marginal seats on average have smaller electorates than those that are relatively safe for the two parties, therefore. The more of them that the Conservatives win, the smaller the gap between each party’s mean electorate and the smaller the likely pro-Labour bias in the outcome.

One other scenario worth exploration concerns Scotland, where the average electorate increased after 2009. In 2010 Labour won 41 seats there, the Liberal Democrats 11, the SNP 6 and the Conservatives 1. Some commentators suggest that the SNP might win most of the Scottish seats. If, to take the extreme case, the SNP won all 59, the average electorate in England and Wales would be 67,381 for Labour and 71,795 for the Conservatives. Labour would still have an advantage over the Conservatives in the translation of votes into seats should the two parties get approximately the same number of votes overall.

How about turnout variations? The average in 2010 was 61.2 and 68.2% in Labour- and Conservative-held seats respectively. In Labour’s 106 target seats it was 66.3 whereas in the Conservatives’ it was 64.9; if Labour won all of its targets, turnout in 2015 – if the 2010 pattern is replicated – where it won would average 62.7% whereas in the remaining seats in Conservative hands it would be 68.8%. If the Conservatives won all of their targets, turnout in all of its seats would average 67.8%, whereas in those retained by Labour it would be 60.9.

Once again, the conclusion is clear – Labour would be advantaged by the same pattern of turnout differentials across the constituencies in 2015 as in 2010 (even if the SNP won all of Scotland’s seats, when the average turnout would be 60.9% and 68.2% in Labour- and Conservative-held seats respectively in England and Wales).

“Turnout differences gave Labour a further – and more substantial – advantage over its main rival in 2010…”

Labour had a considerable advantage over the Conservatives in 2010 – as at previous elections – because its seats had fewer electors on average. (Which is not to deny that some Labour-held seats have large electorates: two of the biggest in 2014 were Manchester Central and Ilford South.) That situation will not change markedly in 2015, unless the Conservatives win a large number of Labour-held marginals. Turnout differences gave Labour a further – and more substantial – advantage over its main rival in 2010, and that too is unlikely to change markedly in 2015.

In conclusion if, as all the opinion polls suggest, the two parties are close in their vote shares on 7 May, Labour could get as many as 30 more seats than the Conservatives (with the size of that gap dependent on the outcome in Scotland). This could be sufficient to make Labour the largest party, giving Ed Miliband the first attempt to form a government – even if Labour came only second in the vote tally. Such an outcome is almost certain because of the lower turnout in Labour seats. The Conservatives’ failure to get the differences in constituency size changed, because the creation of new constituencies was aborted in 2013, makes Labour’s advantage even more certain.

About the authors

Policy Press CoverYou can read more on this subject by Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie in their book Money and electoral politics  – available to buy from the Policy Press website here. Don’t forget newsletter subscribers receive a 35% discount on all our titles purchased through our website. Not a subscriber? Don’t feel left out, sign up here!

Ron Johnston is Professor of Geography at the University of Bristol. Charles Pattie is Professor of Geography at the University of Sheffield, specialising in electoral geography. David Rossiter has worked in a research capacity at the Universities of Sheffield, Oxford, Bristol, Leeds and Essex. He has been involved in the redistricting process both as academic observer (for example The Boundary Commissions, MUP, 1999) and as advisor to the Liberal Democrats at the time of the Fourth Periodic Review.

This blog was originally posted on the LSE blog here. #bitetheballot #imvotingbecause #whyvote

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Scotland decides: Could the ‘Yes’ vote deliver a different kind of Scottish society?

Open University academic and Policy Press author Gerry Mooney has written extensively on the subjects of Scottish social policy and devolution. On the eve of the referendum to decide whether Scotland should become fully independent from the UK Mooney shares his views on how a ‘Yes’ majority return on Thursday could lay the foundation for a more socially just Scottish society. Interview and report by Rebecca Megson.

Gerry Mooney feels whatever happens at the referendum, the debate has changed the political landscape of Scotland

Gerry Mooney feels whatever happens at the referendum, the debate has changed everything for Scotland

Gerry Mooney is a ‘Yes’ man. Unapologetically so, in fact.

What’s more, he is bursting with excitement about the possibility of Scotland returning a majority ‘Yes’ vote for independence tomorrow. He believes that this will be the first step on the long road to developing a different kind of society from the rest of the UK, a society that is centred on equality and fairness.

But Mooney is quick to point out a misunderstanding about the ‘Yes’ vote, one that he suggests is being deliberately made by the Unionist politicians – that is those on the ‘No’ side of the debate.

“A ‘Yes’ vote has been portrayed as a vote for the SNP, for Alex Salmond and for Scottish nationalism”, says Mooney.

“In reality, the vast majority of people voting ‘Yes’ wouldn’t actually go on to vote SNP and are not nationalists. What a future independent Scottish Parliament would look like, we simply don’t know yet. That will have to be decided further down the line, through Scottish general elections.”

Misunderstanding

This isn’t the only misunderstanding about the referendum debate south of the border, according to Mooney. Whilst the UK national news focuses on what he calls ‘blazing representations of Scottish nationalism’ – men and women in kilts and tartans, calling upon the spirit of Braveheart – his experience is that this has been very much on the margins of the debate in Scotland.

“On the ‘Yes’ side there is no need to assert Scottishness, it is taken for granted, whilst for the ‘No’ camp they have to almost ‘overdo it’ in stressing their Scottishness,” says Mooney

“It is the ‘No’ campaign who have actually had to do a lot more because of the independence campaign as far as nationalism is concerned. They’ve had to defend their Scottishness, to develop and portray a sense of Britishness and a British nationalism that includes Scottishness.”

“Many people are unhappy with the policy decisions being made by the UK coalition government in London”

The real debates in Scotland over the past couple of years leading up to the referendum have centred on future Scottish public services and social policy, rather than rampant nationalism. Mooney says:

“Many people are unhappy with the policy decisions being made by the UK coalition government in London. There is a lot of opposition to austerity, to the privatisation of schools and the privatisation of the NHS. These policies are out of tune with what many in Scotland would like to see.”

Irrespective of the outcome tomorrow, Mooney believes the political and policy landscape will never be the same again in Scotland. Even if the ‘No’ campaign wins, if the ‘Yes’ campaign gets 48% of the vote, as some polls are predicting, that isn’t a voice that is going to disappear. The consequences of a ‘No’ vote are, according to Mooney, uncertain.

Mooney’s enthusiasm for Scotland’s independent future is infectious. He feels that the spirit of devolution will be equally as infectious for the rest of the country, predicting calls for greater devolution in Wales and the instigation of an Assembly in the North of England if a ‘Yes’ vote is returned.

Westminster Parliament feels 'remote' to many in Scotland - Photo Wikipedia

Westminster Parliament feels ‘remote’ to many in Scotland – Photo Wikipedia

“The rise in the dominance of London and the south of England in the last 10 years has really shifted the view on devolution. London seems as remote and alien to people in the North of England as it does to people in Scotland.”

Until recently, the ‘No’ campaign and the main political parties at Westminster have largely ignored the possibility of Scotland returning a ‘Yes’ vote. Mooney says:

“It is astonishing to see that the UK government has suddenly woken up to the fact that this referendum is happening. In the last two weeks, as the polls have shown that the ‘Yes’ vote was consolidating and catching up with the ‘No’ campaign, the ‘danger’ button has been pressed down in London.”

Mooney is amused that, as he sees it, the panic in Westminster has led to Scotland making the lead item in the news every day. Renewed focus on the country is, he believes, largely being seen as too little, too late.

“It looks extremely desperate. Until these past two weeks the ‘No’ campaign has been completely and utterly negative, portraying Scotland in crisis if it votes for independence. Now, all of a sudden there are promises of more powers and discussion of what being part of the UK can do for Scotland.”

There have been a lot of promises made by London if Scotland votes ‘No’ but Mooney feels that there’s very little sense of what the promises are likely to amount to in the long run, or if Westminster politicians can be trusted.

He says: “We don’t know what a future Scotland will look like – we can’t guarantee it will be the future we want and hope for but we will have more power to create that society if we’re independent.”

“However, we can be certain, if it’s a ‘No’ vote there will be more austerity, more cuts, more poverty and rising inequality.”

Mooney has no illusions that the change will happen overnight. However he is confident that the creation of a new Scotland that is focused upon the pursuit of equality can only be realised if Scotland delivers a ‘Yes’ majority tomorrow.

More from Gerry Mooney
Social justice and social policy in Scotland [FC]Read Social justice and social policy in Scotland – available at the special discounted price of £15.00 (RRP £28.99) from the Policy Press website this month.

Articles by Gerry Mooney
OpenLearn articles can be found here

The Conversation articles can be found here, including the recent: ‘Campaigns fight to define what Scottish Social Justice means’ 

On Discover Society: ‘Scotland: State and devolution…but not revolution…as yet?’

In the Scottish Left Review on ‘Poverty and Independence’

Gerry’s other publications can be viewed at his OU webpage

An American Future for Australia’s Universities: derailing the moral mission

Guest blogger and Policy Press author Salvatore Babones shares his concerns about the reforms proposed by the new Australian government to deregulate university fees. These will be considered and debated, as part of the wider suite of  budget proposals, by the Australian Parliament when they return in August. 

Salvatore Babones applauds Australian universities 'moral mission'

Salvatore Babones applauds Australian universities ‘moral mission’

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s new government is proposing to deregulate university fees as part of a series of changes announced in the budget in May. Education Minister Christopher Pyne has said the country has a lot to learn from the American system.  But how accurate is this statement?

Australia’s university system should be the envy of the world: research productivity is high, financial bars for students are low, and academic salaries are among the highest in the world. Unionization ensures basic procedural fairness and relative equality across the sector. Forty-five percent of people aged 25-34 years old have completed tertiary degrees.

Australia’s population of 23 million is 10% smaller than that of Texas, yet multiple Australian universities regularly feature in global top 100 rankings: the Universities of Sydney, Melbourne, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia, plus the Australian National University.

Reasonable cost

These world-class outcomes are achieved at very reasonable cost: Australia spends about 1.6 percent of GDP on tertiary education, exactly equal to the OECD average. Inclusivity is ensured by the fact that students can defer 100 percent of tuition payments until their incomes rise well above the national median. High productivity + low cost = policy paradise.

So why is Australia’s new government determined to revolutionize the Australian higher education sector?

The government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott has proposed to deregulate fees so that universities can charge whatever tuition the market will bear. Universities will have to set aside 20 percent of any funds raised through increased tuition to provide scholarships for disadvantaged students. At the same time, government subsidies will be cut by 20 percent across the board, shifting more costs onto students and their families.

The expected result is that students will bid up the price of degrees at the top universities, while regional and rural universities may find it difficult to make up the 20 percent shortfall in government support. Universities like Sydney, Melbourne and ANU will benefit at the expense of the rest of the system.

“The government’s program will result in a massive financial transfer from Australian families to elite university researchers”

The government’s program is designed to give Australia “at least one university in the top 20 in the world.” If fees are pushed high enough, it might give Australia three.

But this propaganda victory will come at a high cost. The government’s program will result in a massive financial transfer from Australian students and families to elite university researchers, many of us expats from the UK and US. In other words, from ordinary Australians to people like me.

A better budget would allow modest across-the-board increases in tuition and require universities to plow these increases back into reduced class sizes. Research-only positions should be eliminated and top researchers should be required to spend serious face time in the classroom, just as they do in the world’s most prestigious universities.

Most importantly, the Australian government should recognize and embrace the fact that the best universities do much more than just teach and conduct research. Universities are important sources of guidance, advice and — yes — criticism. At their best, universities are forces for positive social change.

Vital moral mission

Today, Australia’s universities perform this vital moral mission as well as any universities in the world, and maybe better. For example, the University of Sydney is the only major university in the world to have a deputy vice chancellor solely focused on indigenous issues. No major American or Canadian university has an officer at that level devoted to Native American or First Nation issues.

Another Sydney initiative is the new Charles Perkins Centre for the study of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Obesity is not a sexy, big-money area of medical research. But when more than 60 per cent of the population is overweight, someone has to find a solution.

Along with research and teaching, moral leadership for positive social change is the indispensable third mission of the modern university. The great strength of the Australian university system is not research or teaching but its fundamental morality. Australia should build on this strength, not jettison it in the vain pursuit of academic rankings.

For decades Australian universities evolved in isolation from the rest of the world. They inherited an Oxbridge tutorial system that they creatively stretched into a modern system of mass education. Higher education unions ensured relative equality across a diverse sector. Australia blazed its own trail with remarkable success.

Australia’s universities have problems, but these problems will not be solved by a massive redistribution of resources from ordinary students to elite researchers. Australia can learn from UK and US academic achievement, but it should also embrace its own moral traditions. Someday soon UK and US universities may wake up to find they have something important to learn from Australia.

In the end, no more than twenty universities can ever be in the top twenty. The rest still have important work to do. We should get on with it.

Salvatore Babones is Associate Professor of Sociology & Social Policy at The University of Sydney. His books Social Inequality and Public Health and The Future of Development: A Radical Manifesto are both published by the Policy Press

If you liked this you might be interested in these:

Regulating international students’ wellbeing

Social inclusion and higher education

Education and social justice in a digital age 

The impact of research in education

And, coming soon….

Australian public policy: progressive ideas in the neoliberal ascendancy

 

Once upon a time there was a country called Europe

Authors Dimitris Ballas, Danny Dorling and Benjamin Hennig, whose forthcoming book The Social Atlas of Europe publishes on Wednesday 25 June, share their views on Europe.

Dimitris Ballas Danny Dorling Benjamin Hennig 2

‘We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved’

It may sound inconceivable today that a statement such as the above could be made by a British Prime Minister and even more so by the leader of the Conservative Party. Yet, this is an extract from a speech delivered by Winston Churchill at the Congress of Europe in The Hague on 7 May 1948. It is just an example of numerous similar statements and activities supporting European integration and union. These were part of wider efforts and actions by the people of a continent shattered by war towards a common purpose and future, which have been imaginatively ‘narrated’ by a member of Europe’s next generation in an award-winning video ‘We are Europe’ – see below. These efforts have been steadily leading towards a Europe United in Diversity and to the formation of a European identity underpinned by common values and ideals such as the establishment of democratic institutions, the respect of human rights and the protection of minorities, as well as solidarity and social cohesion.

However, Europe has now reached a critical crossroads after several years of a severe economic crisis and austerity measures that have disproportionately and brutally hit the most disadvantaged. There has also been an apparent revival of old nationalisms and divisions coupled with the rise of extremist far right and populist parties.

The performance of such parties in last month’s European parliament elections has highlighted the need for reform and change. But there are very different perspectives taken with regards to what the response to the rise of Eurosceptic parties should be. On the one hand, there are Eurosceptic calls for a stop or even a reversal of the plans for further integration and political union. In contrast, there are also strong voices of support for changes that are “needed to keep the European dream alive”, shifting the focus from austerity towards supporting “investment on jobs and on growth” and for a new radical manifesto for Europe calling for “less Europe on issues where member countries do very well on their own, and more Europe when union is essential”.

European identity

"One's destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things" Goodreads 2013

The Social Atlas of Europe, Map 13 – “One’s destination is never a place, but a new way of seeing things” Goodreads 2013

As three European geographers whose first languages are Greek, English and German respectively, we hope that our book The Social Atlas of Europe can be used to enhance the perception of European identity and solidarity. The Atlas, which includes all countries that have shown a clear and strong commitment to a common European future, not only shows how different are the separate countries, regions and great cities of this continent, but also how often they are so similar. There are a huge number of ways in which people living in different parts of Europe have so much in common. Often the real differences are not found across national borders but between villages and cities or between rich and poor quarters of a town. And the rich quarters of Europe are all more similar to each other than to the poorer areas that are nearer to them. Looking at the maps in this atlas you can begin to believe that you are looking at the geography of a single large group of people. You can see what happens to all the people of Europe collectively and have a better grasp of their collective hopes, fears and lives.

“What does it mean to be European today?”

In The Social Atlas of Europe we offer a new human geography and human cartography perspective and contribution to debates about the above issues by bringing together a great many maps and facts about Europe and its people. Our approach is underpinned by the view that Europe is something much more than just a world region and a collection of nation states and by the idea that we are hopefully moving more towards the belief that so many of us are a “European people” instead of a “Europe of nations”. We argue that the EU needs to be thought of as an entity that is more than just a union of member states, more than just a common market or just a potential monetary or fiscal union. What does it mean to be European today? To what extent do the citizens of EU member states feel that they are citizens of something larger than their own country?

One way of moving towards a “European people” instead of a “nation-state” mentality and of bolstering European identity further is to think of Europe and its economy, culture, history and human and physical geography in terms of a single large land mass. This is already happening to some extent, especially in the minds of the rapidly increasing numbers of Europeans who live in a member state other than their country of birth perceiving Europe and its people in a more fluid way. An example of this is the story of a 7-year old boy from Valencia in another award-winning video.

In The Social Atlas of Europe we highlight the notion of Europe in these terms by looking at its physical and population geography whilst simultaneously utilising the latest available demographic, social, and economic data on a wide range of topics. Using state-of-the-art geographical information systems and new cartography techniques we reveal beautiful versions of Europe shaped by its social values, culture, education, employment, environmental footprints, health and well-being, and social inequalities and cohesion. The Social Atlas visualises and maps Europe in a way that makes it more likely for Europeans to make more sense of their local area’s physical and human geography and also to think of Europe as one place: the place they belong to or their “home” (which is perhaps the way in which the next generation of Europeans will think when asked ‘where do you come from?’).

Overall, The SoThe social atlas of Europecial Atlas of Europe offers a fresh perspective and a new way of thinking about Europe as a continent of cities rather than states, a continent of people rather than power and one of hope rather than decline, reminding its people how much they have in common and highlighting that there is now, more than ever, a need to carry on working together rather than pulling apart.

Click here if you’d like to purchase your copy of The Social Atlas of Europe and receive a 20% discount on the list price – £19.99 (RRP £24.99)

New Policy & Politics blog

We now have a new Policy & Politics blog at http://policyandpoliticsblog.com/ 

Policy & Politics Conference 2014

Policy & Politics coverThe challenges of leadership and collaboration in the 21st Century

16th and 17th September 2014, Marriott Hotel, Bristol

The recent global financial crisis and associated austerity measures have led to a reconfiguration of the role of the state and a fundamental reshaping in the design and delivery of public services. State and non-state actors are struggling to cope with the scale of change, the speed with which adjustments are being made and managing a range of ‘wicked issues’ in the absence of necessary resources. In this uncertain environment, policy issues and objectives are often ill-defined, constantly shifting and lack clear direction. There is also huge variability in the coping strategies and creative responses being enacted by public leaders in different contexts. Partnerships, co-production and networks have been viewed as an antidote to the ‘ungovernability’ of complex issues in public and social policy. However, collaborative governance is also fraught with difficulties and pitfalls and raise questions about legitimacy, accountability and social justice. Within this context, the 2014 conference seeks to address questions around the themes of leadership and collaboration. We ask participants to interpret this call broadly but some key questions might include:

  • What scope is there for creative leadership in contemporary policy and politics?
  • How can leadership and/or collaboration drive innovation in the design and delivery of public services?
  • What capacity do non-state actors have to influence policy and politics?
  • What impact can leadership and collaboration have on legitimacy, accountability and social justice in public policy?
  • What are the challenges for public leadership and collaboration in a global context?

Papers are invited in any areas of public or social policy. In writing their papers authors are requested to reflect on the conference theme.

Plenary Speakers

Professor Chris Ansell, University of California, Berkeley, US – ‘Collaborative governance of transboundary problems’

Professor Erik-Hans Klijn, Erasmus University, Netherlands – ‘Public leadership between ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage’

Professor Helen Sullivan, University of Melbourne, Australia – ‘Collaboration as the new normal? Global trends, public policy and everyday practices’

Professor Jacob Torfing, Roskilde University, Denmark, – ‘How to lead and manage collaborative innovation’

Academic organisers

Professor Matthew Flinders, University of Sheffield; Sarah Ayres and Noemi Lendvai, University of Bristol.
For academic enquiries please email pp-conference@bristol.ac.uk

Administrative organiser
For conference enquiries relating to bookings, venue, travel details and timetable please email pp-conference@bristol.ac.uk


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives


Paul Collins's Running Blog

Running and London Marathon 2013 Training

Bristol Civic Leadership Project

A collaborative project on change in local governance

Stuck on Social Work

And what a great place to be

Points: The Blog of the Alcohol and Drugs History Society

short and insightful writing about a long and complex history

Urban policy and practice

Publishing with a purpose

TessaCoombes

Policy & Politics blog with a focus on place

Blog

Publishing with a purpose

Public Administration Review

Public Administration Review is a professional journal dedicated to advancing theory and practice in public administration.

EUROPP

European Politics and Policy

Urban Studies Journal

Publishing with a purpose

INLOGOV Blog

Official Blog of the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

The official blog of the Journal of Public Policy

Social Europe

politics, economics and employment & labour

OUPblog

Publishing with a purpose

PolicyBristol Hub

Publishing with a purpose

Alex Marsh Online

Publishing with a purpose

Democratic Audit UK

Publishing with a purpose

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,783 other followers

%d bloggers like this: