By Dr Jack Fosten
The dust has far from settled after a week in Catalonia which has sent shockwaves around the world. Events began on Sunday 1st October (termed “1-O” by the Catalans) with a banned referendum brought about by the separatist-leaning Catalan president Carles Puigdemont in defiance of orders from the Spanish government. Rather than permitting the vote to proceed peacefully in the same way as a similar referendum held in November 2014, the strategy of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s government was to use police force to shut down the referendum and prevent Catalans from voting. What followed were ugly scenes, beamed across the globe, with heavy-handed police beatings dealt out to civilians in order to block off polling stations and remove ballot boxes.
By Pete Dawson
The Brazilian football Neymar has been transferred from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) for a world record fee of £200m (€222m). It has also been reported that he will earn £782,000 (€865,000) a week. The five year deal will mean PSG will have shelled out close to £400m. These are extraordinary sums of money – even for football.
By Dr Oana Borcan
As parties tour the country parading their shiny manifestos and skilfully dodging the tough questions from the press, much confusion ensues over the problem of inequality in higher education and how best to address it. On the one hand, Labour and others criticised the Tories for the hike in tuition fees over the past years and for scrapping the £3500 non-repayable maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds in August 2016. The implication, as critics suggested, would be that disadvantaged students would be laden with the largest debts, potentially deterring university entry in this group and deepening income inequality. On the other hand, we see the Conservative government raving about the current record number of disadvantaged students in higher education and warning that a Brexit in the hands of other parties will ruin this progress. In defending their policies, the Tories seem to focus more on absolute numbers and Labour, Lib-Dems, Greens and UKIP more on the relative performance of disadvantaged students; In this blog I will (1) go over the numbers and (2) the proposals and, finally (3) discuss the evidence relating to the effectiveness of proposed policies. While I focus here on policies related to the equality of opportunity in higher education, other proposed education policies can be analysed in a similar way.
By Prof. Ted Turocy
In the World Baseball Classic currently underway, Major League Baseball is testing out a rule change designed to resolve tied games more rapidly. When a game goes into the eleventh inning (the second extra inning), each team will begin their turn at bat with runners already on first and second bases. For readers not familiar with baseball, this will make scoring easier, and therefore ties should be broken more quickly. This rule has been used in international baseball for a few years (and amateur players may have encountered a version of it in local baseball and softball leagues as well).
Prof. Ted Turocy – Behavioural Economist and Baseballer
By Dr David Hugh-Jones
This post is about a paper of mine with Carlo Perroni of Warwick University, The Logic of Costly Punishment Reversed. It has just been accepted in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (ungated version at my website).
The germ for this paper came in 2006 at Northwestern University, in a chat with my game theory lecturer, Christoph Kuzmics. He mentioned to me that he was working on evolutionary game theory explanations for costly punishment.
The idea of costly punishment is that people are prepared to pay costs so as to punish bad behaviour or take revenge. For example, if a guy starts a bar fight because you spilled his beer, or someone lectures you for leaving litter, that might be costly punishment. Why is that important? Well, all societies need to maintain order – to prevent crime and ensure that people contribute to community goods. Modern societies have the machinery of the state – the policeman and the tax office – to do this. But throughout history, most people have lived in small societies without states; and there are many kinds of bad behaviour, like littering, that it would be too expensive or intrusive to control using the state’s coercive power. Instead, people in the group must punish bad behaviour, either verbally, financially or physically.
(by Farasat Bokhari & Bruce Lyons)
Last week the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of approximately £90 million on Pfizer and a generic manufacturer Flynn Pharma, on the grounds that each abused a dominant position by charging excessive and unfair prices for phenytoin sodium capsules, an anti-epilepsy drug (brand name Epanutin). The price of a pack of 84 capsules of 100MG increased from £2.83 to £67.50 in October 2012. This came about as part of a deal where Pfizer sold the distribution rights in the UK to Flynn Pharma, who in turn ‘de-branded’ the drug, and sold the generic at an inflated price. The drug in question is not protected by any patents, so other generics are available and further generic entry is possible, yet the branded original drug was replaced by a higher priced generic. The CMA’s case is a rare example of an abuse of dominance finding (under Art. 102 and/or Ch.2 of CA98) in relation to exploitative pricing. While we await the full published decision, it is worth looking at industry price and quantity data to contextualise the CMA’s case. We also try to understand how this price hike was possible and ask whether the CMA should pursue more exploitative pricing cases.
By Dr David Hugh-Jones
After the Brexit vote, a standard story is doing the rounds: the poor and uneducated are threatened by globalization. They respond atavistically, asserting their superiority over ethnic outsiders. As a result, they are fooled into voting against their own interests, for racist parties who do not really care about them.
This explanation comes in various flavours. To make it more left-wing, substitute “neoliberal world order” for “globalization”. But the basic recipe is widely reused. Obama talked about people “clinging to guns and religion”. This year, we are told it explains why people are voting for Trump.
There are some specific problems with applying this idea to Brexit. The context for the British vote was not just “globalization”: it was free movement of labour in the EU, combined with policy failures elsewhere that have led large numbers of people to seek employment in the UK.
Here’s a more basic question. Is nationalism truly irrational?