In the course of a decade and a year of commemorations there has been much discussion and consideration about the past. Difficult issues and questions are negotiated and depending on which tradition one tends to associate with, particular emphasis will be placed on certain events or certain interpretations. Learning from the past is important and not to be avoided. Looking to the future has also featured in recent commemorations and we could do with more of this. Whatever the future holds we need to think through the values and goals that underpin our 21st century endeavours. What will Ireland look like in 2066? How will Britain, the EU, Europe, the world be in fifty years time? Nobody could have imagined the world of 2016 in 1966. Neither could anyone have imagined the world of 1966 in 1916.
People’s worst fears were not realised (e.g. there wasn’t a third world war) while other things happened that were never imagined possible such as the extraordinary growth in living standards and material conditions of workers together with improvements in standards of health and education (although some might dispute the latter!). Neither did anyone anticipate the extent to which the environment would change so rapidly as a result of human behaviour. We should be careful, very careful, in predicting or imagining the future shape of Ireland, Britain, Europe and the World in 2066. Above all, economists should temper their projections and assumptions by admitting to ignorance of the complex processes and longwave patterns that do not fit into anything approaching an adequate explanatory or predictive model. At best, we can guess the immediate term, assume the medium-term and hope for the long-term!
That the future is so uncertain is no cause to adopt a fatalistic or passive view in relation to economic and social developments. Globalisation together with the information revolution have not entirely stripped national governments or regional political entities of their capacity to initiate and support long-term change. There are policies, institutions, programmes and actions that states, civil society organisations, such as trade unions, together with centres of learning and research can undertake or influence. At one level there is remarkable consensus by all that we want ‘peace’, ‘human rights’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘fairness’, ‘equality’ (whatever that exactly means) and ‘progress’. Is there any political philosophy or platform bar a few extreme examples that would not sign up to these stated goals and outcomes. The problem is that once we dig into what any of these terms might mean in a given context and situation we are challenged to agree on much.
The problem that many nationalists (whether Irish, British or other) face is that they tend to ignore social and economic class interests (which often diverge).
The problem that socialists or social-democrats face (for example) is that they have sometimes tended to ignore the pervasive and persistent influence of what some might regard as idiosyncratic factors such as nationality, religion, cultural or sexual identity.
The problem that economists face is that they very frequently ignore the inseparable link between theory, evidence, values and class interest or cultural identity. In other words, ‘economics’ is not and cannot be a science. At best economists use some scientific methods some of the time to explain some phenomena but, all the time, shaped by the values, interests and preconceived ideas inherited from their own personal, group or professional background. This is why I prefer the original term ‘political economy’ to ‘economics’ because the latter can be used to pretend that there is an independent, neutral and scientifically self-contained body of knowledge which is above class interest, cultural identity or schools of philosophy. If we are honest we will admit that John Maynard Keynes was correct when he wrote:
Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
Recently a writer in a daily newspaper wrote (Irish Think Tanks don’t think anymore 
):
Scanning around Ireland it is hard to find much in the way of direction emerging from our thinktanks. Our thinktanks largely fit within the course set in the late 1950s, where they tend to lack a world view, a core thesis on what the Irish experience should be about. These research centres – ESRI, IIEA, Geary, Nevin, Tasc – tend to focus on optimising the existing management of the State, tinkering here and there. Often they bend easily towards the project work proposed by their funders and are captured by the strategic and sectional goals that surround them.
I beg to differ about the role of the NERI (note that there is no such thing as the Nevin Institute but the Nevin Economic Research Institute). However, the writer has a point. Where is the forward looking, cross-cutting, courageous, provocative, risky, controversial, upsetting, constructive, practical, grounded, accessible and relevant thinking coming from? We have all much work to do. The claim that think tanks are ‘captured by the strategic and sectional goals that surround them’ is not an entirely exaggerated one. However, is it not curious that the Nevin Economic Research Institute is typically referred to by the media as ‘a trade union funded think tank’ and that other Institutes are not typically referred to as ‘government funded think tanks’? This is not to suggest that excellent and independent research is not carried out across many institutes and think tanks. However, even the most detached school of political economy or economic analysis must get its funds from somewhere and that fact is not without relevance.
Regardless of funding source think tanks and institutes of learning and research have a moral duty to use their resources to explore, to question, to explain and to propose alternative approaches and even to imagine a different Ireland, Britain or Europe. As it says on the grave of another dead man (Karl Marx)
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.