Search

In the context of the debate surrounding and following the Brexit referendum in June 2016, credentialed economic expertise did not enjoy a privileged position within the political and policy debate. Using the contrasting cases of the Office for Budget Responsibility and Economists for Brexit/Free Trade, this paper explores the mobilisation of economic expertise within the discursive politics of Brexit under conditions of pervasive radical uncertainty. It argues that politicisation is an important factor in side-lining technocratic influence over policy choice, but that the particular type of politicisation in play (plebiscitary) meant that the input of technocratic experts was downgraded. It is a politics conducted in another register to the reasoned, evidence-based vernacular of accredited experts and the policy discourses that they work with and through. We also argue that the basic unknowability of the post-Brexit economy further impaired expert input. These limitations were acknowledged by accredited experts themselves, reducing their traction within the policy debate. This unknowability was exploited by forms of counter-expertise mobilised by the Leave campaign. The radical uncertainties of Brexit allowed in heterodox assumptions and approaches to compete on a level playing field with an approximation of what could be presented as prudent best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child labor was a very important issue during the progressive period, which was characterized by the development of social policies, especially regarding the welfare of women and children. The arguments against child labor were not restricted to a moral point of view but attempted to point out the economic dimensions, with several prominent economists of the progressive period becoming involved in this debate. In this paper, we will analyze the way economists in the progressive period approached the issue of child labor, notably through the views of two leading economists of the period that were particularly concerned with this problem, one representing the Protestant economics' strand (Richard T. Ely) and the other the Catholic economics' one (John A. Ryan). We explore the convergence and the nuances in the positions of these two economists in the criticisms against child labor. Finally, we briefly present that important role of several social organizations advocating legislation curbing child labor and the way these networks converged in their activities with progressive economists in disseminating the arguments against child labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]