Hobart Paperback – serie

Price controls across many sectors are currently being hotly debated. New controls in the housing market, more onerous minimum wages, minimum prices for alcohol, and freezes on energy prices are very high up the agenda of most politicians at the moment. Even without any further controls, wages, university fees, railway fares and many financial products already have their prices at least partly determined by politicians rather than by supply and demand in the market. Indeed, barely a sector of the UK economy is unaffected in one way or another by government controls on prices. This book demonstrates why economists do not like price controls and shows why they are widely regarded as being amongst the most damaging political interventions in markets. The authors analyse, in a very readable fashion, the damage they cause. Crucially, the authors also explain why, despite universal criticism from economists, price controls are so popular amongst politicians. This excellent book, edited by Christopher Coyne and Rachel Coyne, should be of great value to all those with an interest in minimum wages and other forms of price control. cheers

By any measure, the privatisation and liberalisation of the UK energy industry was an enromous success. And yet the public are not convinced. As energy expert Carlo Stagnaro shows in this important book, the re-regulation of the market in the UK, together with policy developed at the EU level, has undermined all the important developments of the 1990s and early 2000s. The result has not only been poorer outcomes in the energy market but a very inefficient approach to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The EU has also only been partially successful in promoting liberalisation and competition in electricity markets and the time is ripe for change. The author shows how the EU must learn the lessons from the UK's successful recent past - and the UK must re-learn them. Therein lies the route to a competitive energy market that serves the ends of consumers rather than the ends of politicians and other interest groups.

The authors of this book were asked to examine the issue of Britain leaving the EU and determine, from an economic or political economy point of view, what the appropriate role of international institutions should be in this debate. They were then asked to relate this to the reality that exists under the status quo or that might exist if Brexit occurred. In doing this, the volume can help achieve three objectives. First, it provides an analysis of the role that international institutions should play in the economic life of a free society. This is important, and rarely discussed in policy debates. In general, policy discussion tends to revolve around how to tweak the status quo - should we have more EU involvement in climate change policy or military intervention by the UN in this or that case, for example. Second, the authors implicitly lay out what a renegotiation agenda ought to look like if a country (whether Britain or not) wishes to reform the EU in a liberal direction, now or at some future time. At the time of writing this foreword, it is clear that David Cameron's agenda is not nearly radical enough, though it remains to be seen whether even that will be achieved.Indeed, it is not clear that the proposals of the UK government will even take the EU in the right direction. Any serious agenda to create a new settlement should start from first principles and take into consideration for what purposes the institution should exist. This would provide a benchmark against which success can be measured. Third, the authors provide a framework within which the practical options of remaining with a reformed EU and Brexit can be analysed. There are some authors who do not believe that international institutions are at all important in the area they discuss. Others believe that international cooperation can take place through bespoke, informal or ad hoc mechanisms, and that the EU itself need have no role. Presumably, in these cases, Brexit would be the logical way to get the best policy outcome. Another group of authors believes that a reformed or slimmed-down role for the EU would be satisfactory, or that the restraints that the EU currently puts on member states are really important in guaranteeing economic liberalism. As far as these areas are concerned, a renegotiated (or, in some cases, unreformed) EU would be the best option.One interesting issue is raised that perhaps transcends the discussions of particular policy areas. Rather than trying to renegotiate a better deal when it comes to labour market regulation or agriculture, it might be better to try to reshape the institutions of the EU. There might be wider support for that, and, in the long term, better institutions could lead to better policy. Overall, this is an important and unique contribution to the discussion about Britain's relationship with the EU. In the white noise of the referendum debate, serious long-term analysis of the precise role that international institutions should play in a free society, grounded in the context of the reality of the EU's current role, is refreshing. Its relevance will long outlive the referendum on Brexit that is likely to take place in the next 18 months.

Extremist ideas thrive on the certainty they engender in their followers. Undermining that certainty is crucial to their defeat. The scholarship on show in this book is therefore vital: it shows that liberalism is not a Western, Christian or atheist construct. The authors writing here demonstrate that Islam is not only compatible with liberalism, but is inherently liberal. The battle against Islamist extremism must be led by the communities most directly affected. This includes Muslims themselves. This book provides ammunition to those who wish to battle the claim that Islam and freedom are incompatible.

The British National Health Service remains the sacred cow of British politics - any criticism is considered beyond the pale, guaranteed to trigger angry responses and accusations of bad faith. This book argues that the NHS should not be insulated from reasoned debate. In terms of health outcomes, it is one of the worst systems in the developed world, well behind those of other high-income countries. The NHS does achieve universal access to healthcare, but so do the health systems in every other developed country (with the exception of the US). Britain is far from being the only country where access to healthcare does not depend on an individual's ability to pay. Author Kristian Niemietz draws on a wealth of international evidence to develop a vision for a universal healthcare system based on consumer sovereignty, freedom of choice, competition and pluralism. His roadmap for reform charts a path from the status quo to a more desirable and effective alternative.

The authors of Education, War & Peace travelled to Liberia, Sierra Leone and South Sudan to conduct research on education in these conflict-affected countries. They uncovered an inspiring story of entrepreneurs stepping into the breach and providing low-cost private schooling to large numbers of children in areas where government was not working well and basic infrastructure had been destroyed. For-profit schools also expanded quickly to soak up educational demand once the conflicts were over. The fees were affordable to families on the poverty line and the children did better academically than those in government schools. Yet international agencies continue to promote government-run schools, even though state education has been a major source of both conflict and corruption in these countries. This groundbreaking study advocates a different approach. Low-cost private schools should be welcomed by policymakers as a means of providing high quality educational opportunities for all.