PASSAGE V
The
dismal science of economics lies at the heart of many public policy debates,
but the range and quality of economic opinion appearing in Canada.s news media
has never been more dismal. Not that long ago, editors seeking expert advice on
economic policy would canvass a wide range of opinion in the nation.s
universities. Their sources would be scholarly economists whose research
appeared in peer-reviewed economics journals. Today news coverage of economic
issues ignores academic voices in favour of business-supported study mills
flogging neo-conservative nostrums for the nation.s economic ills.
Cloaked
in pseudo-academic garb by virtue of their self-designation as .institutes,.
the Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe Institute, the Atlantic Institute for
Market Studies seek to influence news coverage and public policy toward a
consistent agenda: less government, lower and less progressive taxes, fewer
social programs, more freedom for the owners of capital, and less power for the
purveyors of labour. Their .studies,. often penned by junior-varsity
economists, are assiduously promoted to key journalists and influential
bureaucrats with news releases and executive summaries that distil complex
topics into easily digested simplicities.
Lars Osberg, a distinguished emeritus
professor of economics at Dalhousie, recently compared his relationship to the
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies as that of a geographer to the Flat Earth
Society. Economist Michael Bradfield refers to AIMS.s Ontario counterpart as
the .Seedy. Howe Institute. Such criticism hasn.t blunted the success of these
organizations, which has been astonishing. Newspapers eat them up. A host of policy
issues, the shift from income taxes to consumption taxes, the crippling of
Canada.s generic drug industry and the consequent stratospheric rise in drug
prices, the pursuit of international trade unhampered by environmental
safeguards or worker rights were all promoted heavily by these study mills. The
left has responded haltingly with counter-institutions like the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives, publisher of the Alternative Budget, but its
effectiveness has been hindered by the stigma of union financing in a way that business
financing has not impeded the right-wing institutes.
Readers with Internet access can find
a useful antidote to the tendentiousness of media economic coverage in the work
of Brian MacLean, an economist at Laurentian University. Every few weeks,
MacLean distributes an e-mail newsletter called Canada.s Economy in the
Newspapers. Each issue reviews several recent articles on economics, pointing
out questionable assumptions, faulty interpretations, and logical
contradictions. His style is engaging and easy to follow without sacrificing
academic credibility. In one recent example, a pair of AIMS papers portrayed
Canada.s system of equalization as a millstone that, far from assisting
have-not provinces, had imprisoned them in a welfare trap. The gist of the
argument is that increased provincial revenues from economic development,
particularly resource based developments, are largely offset by reductions in
equalization payments, with the result that provincial government.s have little
or no incentive to promote economic development. Readers probably don.t need
MacLean.s help to detect the real -world absurdity of this conclusion.
Since
the Second World War; and likely for decades before that, economic development
has been a nearly universal obsession for provincial and federal governments
alike. In the logic of AIMS.s researchers, attempts by provincial governments
to wheedle better royalty deals out of oil companies and mining corporations
are misguided policies that could be eliminated if only the equalization program
were gutted. MacLean points out other distortions in the AIMS analysis, such as
the fundamental misconception that equalization is somehow supposed to be a
tool for economic development, and Atlantic Canada.s continued lack of
prosperity is proof of its failure. But equalization has nothing to do with
economic development; its purpose is to ensure reasonable comparable levels of
critical government services like health, education, and welfare, without
wildly different levels of taxation.
60.
Brian MacLean is:
(1) An economist
(2) Director of AIMS
(3) Producer of the newsletter .Canada.s
Economy in the Newspapers.
(4) Both (1) and (3)
61.
According to the passage, the quality of economic reporting and analysis in
Canadian media till ome
time
back was:
(1) Deplorable
(2) Academic
(3) Well researched
(4) The best in the world
62.
Lars Osberg.s opinion about AIMS, according to the passage is:
(1) Excellent
(2) Unimpressed
(3) Critical
(4) Unbiased
63.
AIMS is most likely to agree with which of the following economic opinions?
(1) The government should increase the
expenditure on social reforms
(2) The government should increase the tax
rates
(3) The government should interfere less with
the market
(4) The educational system in Canada should
be completely revamped
Nice blog Thank you very much for the information you shared.
ReplyDeleteWeb Development Internship in Bangalore
Website Designing Internship Internship in Bangalore
Internship Program