What, really, is the IEA anyway?
Iain Dale breaks the news that John Blundell is leaving the IEA, prompting Guido to speculate on the succession.
Before the IEA can choose a new Director, though, it has to decide a prior question. What is it?
This may seem odd, since the IEA has an almost rigid view of its own ideological position. It is absolutely not a Tory think tank, it is a free market libertarian organisation.
The question over its identity is different. Is it a body that wants to influence policy, or is it primarily concerned with educating people about free markets?
If the latter it can afford to keep repeating the same points over and over again. Indeed it probably has to. But something different is required if it wants to influence the political agenda. The IEA needs much more political dexterity, and the ability to capture attention with practical schemes that recommend themselves to politicians.
There is an advantage to the educational model, but if that is the decision the IEA cannot expect to retain quite the same public influence and profile.
If the public policy model is followed then the organisation has got to be willing to compromise with political reality at least a little.
The key thing is not the choice of the next Director of the IEA, it is the choice of their terms of reference.
Daniel, the mission of the IEA is very clear: it is to educate. There is no point the IEA doing that which other think tanks do well and then leaving a gaping hole where work is so necessary. The role of the IEA has always been to educate students, teachers, ministers of religion, journalists, "thinking politicians" and so on - Hayek's second hand dealers in ideas. In the 1980s, direct influence over policy (which is probably exaggerated) really came about by accident. Thatcher wrote to Fisher congratulating him for "creating the climate" in which she could work, not for influencing policy. Sometimes there is overlap. In Policy Exchange's most recent two documents (public sector pensions and the family) there are literally dozens of references to earlier IEA works, where we have published on more direct policy issues but in a different style and earlier than the others. Terrific! That is how it should work. We need to (and do) get among the schools, colleges, those thinking about economics in churches and so on and so on by bringing in new and novel strands of free market economics in a way that is comprehensible to the educated non economist.
Posted by: Philip Booth | 29 Jun 2009 22:22:31
Philip: You have outlined the IEA's current role. I think Danny's point is that John's retirement gives the IEA the option of reconsidering whether that is the role you want to undertake in the next 10 years. You may not want to chance, but opportunities like these to reconsider your role should always be taken seriously, whatever decision you finally come to.
Posted by: tim leunig | 30 Jun 2009 23:11:41