Serious economists do their own work
Rachel Reeves' book on female economists passes other people's work as her own; she falls well short of those economists' intellectual rigour
Rachel Reeves was described by Mark Carney as a “serious economist”. Given Mark Carney’s role in trashing the pound and giving us our current cost-of-living woes, that’s not the terrific endorsement that Reeves might think. It’s like being called a “trustworthy fund manager” by Bernie Madoff, or a “wonderful humorist” by Roderick Spode.
Anyway. She’s written a book extolling the contribution of various female economists. It won’t surprise anyone that she’s keen on leftist economists and there doesn’t seem to be a mention of Rose Friedman, Victoria Curzon-Price or Harriet Taylor Mill.
It’s reported here that Reeves’ book has a number of passages that she didn’t actually write. Now that’s serious. Rachel Reeves caught plagiarising
Her office and publisher both reject this claim (my emphasis added)
A spokesperson told the FT: “We strongly refute the accusation that has been put to us by this newspaper. These were inadvertent mistakes and will be rectified in future reprints.”
Basic Books pointed out that the book includes a bibliography from more than 200 sources. It told the FT: “Where facts are taken from multiple sources, no author would be expected to reference each and every one.”
Sorry, Basic Books, but that’s exactly what authors are expected to do. Especially serious ones. And to the “spokesperson” are we to take it that “inadvertent mistakes” are the hallmark of Rachel Reeves’ homework? That seems less-than-serious.
What we’d really like Reeves to publish, instead of unoriginal won’t-be-read books, is her serious “stress tests” regarding the effect of VAT and business rates on school fees, supposedly “proving” that Labour will raise the £1.7bn they claim. Seriously. If these stress tests exist, why shouldn’t they be published? What methodology was used? What are Labour’s assumptions? What are the risks if people don’t behave as Labour require?
Currently, Labour is sulking in the red corner refusing to engage or consult on the realities of their car-crash VAT policy. Voters might wonder if there’s really a pot of tax gold under the independent school rainbow….or whether instead there are serious risks of pupil migration, state school overload, increased waiting lists at “posh” top state schools, job losses….and seriously reduced tax receipts as I have described here and here; also here.
In the absence of serious engagement by Reeves on the risks, voters might conclude that, rather than a practical, honest and “fair” (yuck) policy that helps poorer state school parents, this is instead a cynical, class-warfare ploy that benefits nothing and nobody except the hard-left authoritarian wing of Labour. Is Labour really, yet again, (after Thatcher, Major and Blair’s successes, and after four consecutive rejections since 2010) trying to sell raw socialism?
Whatever Mark Carney says, neither plagiarists, nor economists who refuse to publish their working, deserve to be taken seriously.