Economic AffairsVolume 44, Issue 1 p. 194-196 BOOK REVIEW Sing as we go: Britain between the wars By Simon Heffer. Hutchinson Heinemann. 2023. 948 pp. £35.00 (hbk). ISBN: 978-1529152647. £14.99 (pbk). ISBN: 978-781804940983. £10.99 (ebk). ISBN: 978-1529152654 J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UKSearch for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12626Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue1February 2024Pages 194-196 RelatedInformation

Economic AffairsVolume 43, Issue 1 p. 161-163 BOOK REVIEW Orderly Britain: How Britain has resolved everyday problems, from dog fouling to double parking, By Tim Newburn and Andrew Ward, Robinson. 2022. pp. 360. £18.99 (hbk). ISBN: 978-1472137968. £8.99 (ebk). ISBN: 978-1472137975 J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 15 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12563Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue1February 2023Pages 161-163 RelatedInformation

Economic AffairsVolume 43, Issue 3 p. 473-474 BOOK REVIEW Pioneers of capitalism: The Netherlands 1000–1800 By Maarten Prak and Jan Luiten Zanden. Princeton University Press. 2023. 261+ ix pp. £35.00 (hbk). ISBN: 978-0691229874. £24.50 (ebk). ISBN: 978-0691242460 J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 18 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12605Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue3October 2023Pages 473-474 RelatedInformation

Economic AffairsVolume 42, Issue 3 p. 567-570 BOOK REVIEW BRITISH RAIL: A NEW HISTORY by Christian WolmarPenguin Michael Joseph (2022), 394 + xvii pp. ISBN: 978–0241456200 (hb, £30); 978–0241456217 (e-book, £10.99) J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton [email protected] University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 13 November 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12549Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume42, Issue3October 2022Pages 567-570 RelatedInformation

Economic AffairsVolume 42, Issue 2 p. 411-413 BOOK REVIEW A DUTY OF CARE: BRITAIN BEFORE AND AFTER COVID, by Peter Hennessy Allen Lane (2022), pp. 256. ISBN: 978–0241491942 (hb, £20.00); 978–0141995670 (e-book, £9.99); 978–0241517437 (Audio Download, £13.00) J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email: len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email: len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12530Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue2June 2022Pages 411-413 RelatedInformation

New research from the IEA outlines the serious shortfalls of the REF scheme as a way to fund higher education. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses the research generated by UK universities. Most recently conducted in 2014, it is used by the national higher education funding councils (HEFCE in England) to help in allocating Quality Research (QR) money. It is likely that the REF directly influences the distribution of less than £1.5 billion, representing between one fifth and one quarter of total government research funding (most of the rest being allocated by the Research Councils). Resources distributed according to REF criteria account for only around 4 per cent of the total turnover of the higher education sector and less than 0.2 per cent of government spending. The REF shows that most high-quality research is concentrated in a limited number of leading universities, which receive the bulk of government funding. Even amongst this group, the impact of the REF outcome is relatively minor. For example, at University College London, the funding allocated as a direct result of the REF accounts for significantly less than 6 per cent of university income. The REF uses significant resources and distorts resource allocation within the higher education sector away from teaching and knowledge dissemination. It involves the appraisal of nearly 200,000 pieces of research and significant bureaucratic costs within universities. The REF distorts the allocation of resources towards the particular type of research encouraged by the REF. The REF also raises academic salaries as universities seek to improve their REF ranking by hiring key academics who score highly on REF criteria and depriving competing universities of those key academics. Despite the relatively low levels of funding distributed as a result of the REF, universities allow their behaviour to be distorted by the process because, as a government-backed kitemark, a REF rating provides signals that are useful to universities from a marketing perspective. However, there is a wide range of other, much more effective, indicators of quality of higher education institutions. Furthermore, no other country conducts an exercise quite like the REF. In relation to research funding, the same – or better – result in terms of the allocation of funds could be achieved by different means. The REF no longer serves a useful purpose and should not be repeated. We should gradually move away from institution-based funding towards project-based funding via the Research Councils. Any remaining need to allocate research support to institutions, for instance for capital purposes, should rely on available metrics rather than the REF. More generally, there is a strong case for reducing the total amount of government subsidy for research and expecting universities to generate their own funds for research and scholarship or support it by reducing overhead costs.

Economic AffairsVolume 41, Issue 3 p. 503-505 BOOK REVIEW THE GYPSY ECONOMIST: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF COLIN CLARK, by Millmow, Alex Palgrave Macmillan (2021), 396 + xx pp. ISBN: 978–9813369450 (hb, £79.99); 978–9813369467 (e-book, £63.99) J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email:len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UK Correspondence Email:len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 October 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12497Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume41, Issue3October 2021Pages 503-505 RelatedInformation

Advertising – ‘commercial speech’ – is a form of communication which brings considerable benefits to the economy and society, and restrictions on it need clear justification.Until the mid-1950s advertising was for the most part unregulated, subject only to laws relating to fraud and defamation which also affect other forms of speech.Since then, direct government restrictions have grown, and are still growing, in an attempt to serve public policy objectives of one kind or another. Some of these interventions may achieve little gain at excessive cost, but at least they are discussed in Parliament.However, many restrictions come from what is ostensibly industry self-regulation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a private body which has morphed from concern with ensuring that advertising is ‘legal, decent, honest and truthful’ to a much wider and more problematic brief.Today the ASA does not simply respond to complaints; it proactively seeks out breaches of its own rules. Moreover it deliberately attempts to change public attitudes through forbidding representation of certain types of otherwise lawful behaviour which may give offence to some groups.The ASA is an unrepresentative body which imposes its own attitudes on the advertising industry and thus on the general public.Its interpretation of ‘offence’ and ‘harm’ appears to differ from the view taken by others concerned with regulatory issues, such as Ofcom and Clearcast.As a consequence, creative expression which is permissible in television and films, YouTube, the theatre, books and newspapers is in effect forbidden in advertising. Rules are continually being expanded to cover more areas of our society and culture, and the ASA recently argued that even political manifestos should be regulated.We should reflect much more carefully on the often unthinking way in which we have acquiesced in restrictions on commercial speech while permitting similar material under the banner of entertainment or intellectual free speech.As Nobel prize-winning economist Ronald Coase discerned, the case for free speech is indivisible. If certain types of speech and imagery are forbidden in advertising, it may not be long before there will be pressure to forbid them in the arts, entertainment and politics.

School closure has been damaging to the mental health of some children and to the educational progress of many. The long-term costs to individuals and the economy of this hiatus in schooling can be exaggerated, but are still likely to be substantial. The costs of the damage are likely to have fallen most heavily on poorer or otherwise disadvantaged children, and the government is understandably taking particular note of this in designing policies to assist educational recovery. As with the NHS, the COVID-19 crisis has exposed longstanding problems in the educational system, and there is a strong case for government policy to look beyond short-term recovery and temporary changes. Such policies as changing the structure of the school year and school day length, which have been advocated for years, could now be brought forward. The government could consider changing the ages, at which children enter and leave primary school, review teaching practices in light of new technologies and changes in how children learn. It should become easier for a wider range of people to become teachers, and the requirement for Qualified Teacher Status could be dropped. In the short run, some form of examination is needed for A-levels and other terminal qualifications, rather than reliance on teacher assessment. In the longer term, the National Curriculum could be decluttered, and there could be only a limited number of examinations at the age of sixteen. A-levels might usefully revert to a modular structure. The Pupil Premium could be given to parents to spend on tutorial support or other relevant educational provision. Experiments with education vouchers could also be encouraged, with the ultimate objective of making it possible for the distinction between state and independent schools to be broken down.

Free speech is, with free trade, freedom of enterprise and security of property, one of the key features of classical liberalism. It is currently being undermined, for a variety of plausible reasons, by government, social and mainstream media companies, and the behaviour of individuals, firms and non-profit organisations.Having thrown off the obvious shackles on free speech in the 1960s and 1970s, we are now imposing new forms of restriction on freedom of thought and expression. Young people in particular are being socialised into a censoriousness about dissident behaviour and speech which is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.One reason for suppressing free speech is concern with ‘hate crimes’. But speech bans have a long history, which shows that, whatever the intent, they are often more likely to hurt disadvantaged groups than protect them. Recent restrictions on speech in western Europe, for example, have been copied to sinister purpose by oppressive governments.Political extremism is more widespread, but less dangerous, than is often supposed by mainstream politicians and commentators. The way to tackle it is by intelligent policing to restrict opportunities for violence rather than by blanket bans on freedom of expression.The presence of disturbing online content is leading governments towards increasing regulation of social media and Internet hosts. But the attempt to eliminate disinformation and harm from the Internet is likely to be doomed to failure. Recent legislative proposals will not achieve what they are intended to achieve, but may cause innovation and competition to suffer.Free speech is considered by both right and left as negotiable or even dispensable when faced with issues such as Covid-19 or Black Lives Matter. In such circumstances our political elites pursue a particular narrative through mainstream and social media and effectively ‘cancel’ those who express opposition or even mild doubt.The prevailing mood of political correctness inhibits comedians and makes people ashamed of what they or their parents used to laugh at in the past. While the consensus may be that there have to be some externally imposed limits on comedic speech, we can’t assume that those who police this speech will act reasonably. A healthy society needs to be able to laugh at itself, even if it occasionally hurts.A neglected area of concern is ‘commercial free speech’ – what advertisers can and can’t say. UK advertising is widely praised worldwide, and a major export earner. But it is increasingly restricted both by government bans and by the Advertising Standards Authority, an unrepresentative body which promotes a form of social engineering and has called for the regulation of political speech.Some aspects of religious freedom are under threat. Public Space Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices have been activated against Christian activists handing out leaflets and holding placards or even silently praying in anti-abortion demonstrations. Proselytising Christians have also been investigated for alleged hate crimes, while some people have lost their jobs for asserting Christian values. Muslims are also particularly at risk from anti-extremist policies.Universities, like other organisations, have the right to prohibit certain types of expression and behaviour from their premises, and impose contractual obligations on employees. However, recent challenges to free speech in higher education, often driven by radical students demanding suppression of ideas, ‘no platforming’ and sanctions against or dismissal of staff, are a worrying phenomenon. A major part of the problem is the lack of institutional diversity in higher education.Trade unions, in the past among the fiercest proponents of free speech, have moved away from this and instead focus on a ‘therapeutic’ role which requires them to protect members from speech that is felt to threaten harm or vaguely defined ‘offence’.‘Offence’ has indeed been too widely accepted as a reason for speech restrictions. People may feel offended without being offended in a significant way, and even those being offended may suffer no meaningful harm. And while people can be compensated for harm from free speech, there is no way of compensating people for removing the freedom to speak. In any case, on purely pragmatic grounds it is nearly always best to allow serious disagreements to be vigorously debated rather than suppressed.

Economic AffairsVolume 40, Issue 2 p. 316-318 BOOK REVIEW RADICAL UNCERTAINTY: DECISION-MAKING FOR AN UNKNOWABLE FUTURE by John Kay, Mervyn King The Bridge Street Press (2020), 528 + xvi pp. ISBN: 978-1408712603 (hb, £25.00); 978-1408712580 (Kindle ed., £9.99) J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UKSearch for more papers by this author J R Shackleton, Corresponding Author J R Shackleton len.shackleton@buckingham.ac.uk University of Buckingham, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12409Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume40, Issue2June 2020Pages 316-318 RelatedInformation

In recent years, there has been a trend towards greater incidence of homeworking. This has been driven by enhanced technological possibilities, but also by supply and demand factors. There is some evidence that homeworking can boost productivity, but not all workers are suited to home work and some might find the isolation problematic. Headline totals of full-time home workers are misleading. The bulk of those classified are self-employed, and only a minority corresponds to the popular image of workers in "home offices" in front of a computer screen. Regular home workers are a relatively privileged group, many in professional and managerial roles. They are older than the average member of the workforce and better paid. The current lockdown means more will be working at home, but it seems unlikely that more than 15% of healthy workers confined to home will be able to work productively for their employer or their business. Those who cannot work productively include many younger workers who are normally employed in bars, restaurants, hotels and retail outlets, but also include self-employed skilled workers who normally go out to serve clients and customers from a home base. The requirement for a substantial period of home isolation is a more serious matter for these groups, both in terms of current incomes and future prospects, than it is for the journalists, politicians, academics, and think-tankers who dominate public discourse.