James Anderson's Political Economy--His Influence on Smith and Malthus

James Anderson's powerful critique of Adam Smith's position on the corn export bounty was published in 1777. It focuse d on Smith's proposition that the bounty could not lead to increased corn production because it could not increase corn's real price. Smit h's response to the critique is traced in later editions of Wealth of Nations. While Anderson's critique of Smith influenced Thomas Malthu s's writings from 1803 onwards, his theory of differential rent did n ot influence Malthus at this stage. An examination of the evolution o f Malthus's ideas on rent between 1803 and 1815, however, indicates t hat Malthus knew and used Anderson's work on rent.

Government intervention in a dynamic economy

From the late 1970s onwards, the view that government intervention could provide a means of overcoming market failure in advanced was increasingly questioned. For some, intervention was to be discouraged because it interfered with individual liberty. For others, what was problematic was the welfare economist's assumption of an autonomous state acting in the public interest. Finally, there was the issue of the state's ability to achieve what it set out to do. Government failure it was argued was just as pervasive as market failure and no antidote to it. This paper critically evaluates such arguments in relation to competition, industrial change, innovation, and competitive advantage in production.

‘It ain’t easy being green’: Sustainable Development between Environment and Economy in Northern Ireland’

Given the relative lack of research on sustainable development in Northern Ireland, this paper focuses on the tensions between environmental governance and regulation on the one hand, and the ‘post-conflict’ imperative for Northern Ireland to compete and grow as a regional economy without continued British state subvention and subsidisation. The paper outlines how this ‘trade-off’ between ‘environment’ and ‘economy’ is essentially misplaced. It argues that this trade-off can be avoided if there is a shift in focus from an ‘environment versus the economy’ policy position to one in which the ‘triple bottom line’ (social, economic and environmental) of sustainable development becomes the over-arching policy agenda. Sustainable development, unlike either orthodox environmental or economic policy, also connects centrally with the unique ‘post-conflict transformation’ agenda of Northern Ireland. For example, promoting a human rights civic culture, tackling socioeconomic inequality and social exclusion, and building a shared future based on supporting sustainable communities and an innovative model of a ‘green(ing) economy’ goes beyond orthodox economic growth. However, it is clear from the Executive’s Programme for Government, failure to support the creation of an independent Environment Protection Agency, and above all the prioritisation of orthodox economic growth based on foreign direct investment that neither environmental protection nor sustainable development is or will be high on the political or policy agenda in Northern Ireland.

Science for sale in a free market economy: But at what price? ABA and the treatment of autism in Europe.

Educating the public accurately about Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is an important undertaking, not least because misconceptions and myths about ABA abound. In this paper we argue that, unfortunately, the efforts of many dedicated professionals and parents to disseminate accurate information about the benefits of ABA for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are damaged by a few behavior analysts whose focus seems to be more on monetary gains than social responsibility. We cite examples of the resulting harm to the public image of behavior analysis from a number of European countries. We conclude by calling upon fellow scientists to unite in their opposition to unscrupulous abuses of free market forces for short-term monetary gains that damage the dissemination of the science of behavior analysis and thereby ultimately disadvantage those who should benefit primarily from our science, i.e., some of the most vulnerable citizens of society.