MAIN ISSUE:
The minister has claimed the backing of 81 economists. He needs to give us evidence. Otherwise I will refer to him as Minister for Fibbing in perpetuity. Mr Deeter, I want to ask you to collect the signatures.
Brian Lenihan’s credibility must be saved.

Ireland being the envy of Europe.
Ireland leading the world. (I am guilty of using that a lot myself)
Ireland having centres of excellence.
Ireland punching above its weight.

You only have to read the above clichés, and one thinks instantly about Iceland. A country which believed it had found some ‘magic formula’ and has people who were clever-er than the rest of the world.

The ironic fact is, with Ireland’s attempts to become world class in many areas of endeavour what we end up with is a very mediocre result indeed. You often hear talk of Ireland punching above its weight. I don’t know if that is a good policy in other areas. I can only talk about what I know.

Accusations of ‘mediocrity’ about the Irish should not be used as an excuse to defend huge ambitious projects, we have not got the skill to execute and manage properly. If the knowledgeable economists here want to include NAMA in the category of ‘trying to be world class’ I would not argue. I do not know about economics enough to comment. However, I do know a little bit about architecture and construction.

We need to distinguish between mediocrity and world class. The pursuit of world class excellence in building design has had a very dangerous effect in my view. It is one thing to produce a ‘world class’ design on a piece of paper. It is quite another to bring expertise to bear on a project in order to execute it. Ireland has been very ambitious in recent years with the design of buildings.

In fact, we have attracted design talent from all over the world. People who come here to talk advantage of Ireland’s willingness as a country to embark on ambitious building plans. But in my view, the ability of many designers to execute their projects in real life has to come under question. The problem is Ireland is a small country. It is very hard to criticise another professional of their work.

I will give you an example of a building project, which looks very handsome from the exterior and was published in all of the architectural magazines. It is the student centre at Belfield UCD campus. It took a lot of skill and effort to design such a beautiful building and to achieve it within the strict budget guidelines of public university funding.

But I am compromised, as an architectural designer. I like good quality buildings and appreciate design whenever I see it. The fact is, Belfield UCD student centre building is the worse buildings completed in Dublin in the last decade or so. You go into the building and you wonder what the building achieves for the level of investment by the client – the university and the Irish taxpayer.

The situation is difficult for me. I know the designers who built the project. That makes it very difficult for me to acknowledge that Belfield UCD student centre is the worse building in Ireland. I encourage any of the UCD economists from UCD to visit the building. Visit the building at various times of the day and see how it actually functions.

Remember a building in such a context may have different functions at different times of the day. The activity profile of the building user might change. When I take off my hat as an architectural designer and look objectively at the Belfield UCD student centre project I understand how inappropriate the design response was to the design problem. It was a waste of valuable public resources, even though it looks wonderful at night time with those lights shining up at the roof overhangs.

You walk into the building and you find a space which resembles an airport departure terminal or a train station. You would expect to see retail units on either side of the glazed day lighted atrium space selling your lingerie or bottles of brandy. But there is only a small newsagent store which only does a modest trade. At Belfield UCD student centre we managed to build a space which took enormous expense but serves almost no useful function.

Taking off my architectural design hat and speaking objectively I would say the following. We have this high moral authority about providing the ‘very best’ of building projects to the public sector and to education. But should that desire to do well for our younger generations, disguise the misuse of valuable public funds? Do we really need to build buildings at great expense that serve no useful purpose?

Here is the main problem. The building is well designed and within budget. It deserved got an architectural award I am sure and created great recognition for the designer. But there was no post-occupancy analysis done of the project to see what value for money was obtained.

There should be a couple of projects like that taken and analysed by a ‘Probe Team’ like they have in the UK. A team with enough resources and time to study the use and functionality of the building, versus what it cost to build. That is the only route towards excellence of any kind in Ireland, in my humble opinion.

Lets step away from architecture and buildings for a minute. I could use NAMA as an example, but instead lets choose some fairly simple. Francis Ruane speaking at a Dublin Innovation event recently spoke about Ireland’s Phd program. I think that Francis Ruane was trying to make the same point about economic policy as I tried to make about building projects above.

Ireland decided to double its rate of Phd graduation. This was a wonderful announcement to make. Ireland is going to be a centre of excellence, world class, punch above its weight and become the ‘envy of Europe’.

The construction of building projects to serve a specific function for a particular user - or the formation of economic policy – how much post occupancy analysis happens of those projects?

The announcement of a brand new project is a wonderful thing and seems to indicate Ireland is going forward and advancing. But how many economic policies or building projects are re-visited afterwards to look at how they function and what use they actually had. This was the point Francis Ruane was making. We need to re-look at our economic policy five years down the road. That isn’t happening at the moment.

I listened to a DCU business school professor recently, a man named Brian Leavy. Leavy worked for the great American company, Digital Equipment corporation when they had a base here in Ireland. Leavy mentioned that one of the ways we advance and gain sophistication at anything, is by re-evaluating projects or products we have completed, to judge them from a value and a pay back point of view.

I wanted to make the point on the evening to professor Brian Leavy, that in architecture and construction is have no such practice that allows us to do post-occupancy analysis of projects. The designers involved in the projects do not want it to happen, in case their designs do not perform as originally specified.

Lets bear in mind also, that economic policy often has un-intended consequences. I attended a debate recently where the panel spoke about Finland and Israel. I think the point was, both invested in projects with the unintended consequence of producing strong technological industries in those countries.

The same with building projects sometimes, you are dependent a lot on luck and factors you cannot even see when you embark upon the project.

I find it difficult to follow all you expert economists sometimes, but I know now it is important to listen to what you all have to say. I can only try to imagine how frustrating it must be for all of you to look at the NAMA scheme. When I look at an architectural design for a project such as the Mater hospital I get really, really worried. Because I know instinctively, from looking at so many projects how little real considered thought and skill has gone into the Mater hospital project. That is the only way I can imagine in my own mind, how it must be for an economists to look at NAMA. Other than that, I can only guess.

But to run with this analogy, between construction planning and economic planning, I have compiled together an short piece for the benefit of Karl Whelan. I deliberately chose a building that Karl may visit very easily on his own campus at UCD Belfield. I don’t know if it will be of any help or not. Furthermore, I have connected my point about a specific building on UCD Belfield campus back to economic planning in a way, by reference to something Francis Ruane said recently about gathering information on the program to increase numbers of Phd graduates in this country.

I know that NAMA is a big deal, I know that. But when I look at the Mater hospital project, I know I will never affect the decision making which affects that project. In fact, the more I complain and rattle on about the Mater hospital project, the more I begin to appear to everyone like a bitter little man. Maybe we can look at this at a smaller scale. That is why I chose something simple like Francis Ruane’s comments about the Phd education program. Maybe as economist you can look at economic planning at that modest level and put pressure on the right people. Who should enable you with the resources needed to do a proper study of fourth level education and resultant small startups in Ireland, arising out of Phd level work. That would be very, very useful work to do.

Furthermore, it would be economics research that would be valuable to people in other countries also. I know it is not as big and important as Nama is, but it is something that is achieve-able for the 46 no. economists. If minister Brian Lenehan wants to go off and ruin the country proper, then let him off to hell. At this stage, it doesn’t seem to make much difference what anyone says. The following post is more of an essay than anything else. Feel free to delete it, copy and paste it, print it, or whatever you like.

Hope it is of some small benefit.

Regards. BOH.

The key issue in the minister’s statement is his claim that he has the backing of a silent plurality of Irish economists, at a bare minimum 81. Nama is a key national issue and the minister has made a hugely important statement. Pro-Nama economists, please draft a letter to support the minister now. His credibility is weak and he needs you now.

obviously, it would be worthwhile to test the claim that nobody here slates eachothers work: so just prove him wrong…. post links where one of the 46 slammed a book written by another, not a sly remark or a funny comment, a proper slag, you only need one example to prove the point.

obviously i’d ask that you please provide a link

Yeah, think you’re right.

I was just being a smartypants.

Any additional bailout of Anglo this year would blow GGD.

The other aspect of “waiting” to report until next year (until NAMA is in place) is that they do some fancy bookkeeping, without actually having addressed any of their problems.

Then we won’t hear from them for another six months.

Nice

“and next year maybe more recaps”

Eh…maybe this year more recaps.

But hey, what does it matter as long as the bindholders are made whole.

Just substitute Lenihan and Cowen for Bernanke and Geithner. First it was the blanket guarantee, then the recaps, now NAMA and next year maybe more recaps. Ad infinitum.

But to seize with glee upon a literal interpretation that he claimed over 80 economists have secretly approached him in support is equally unedifying IMHO.

Back when the guarantee was being signed, we were assured that they had went through the banks books and we were not just going into this blind… This was repeated in early 2009 by Lenihan.

Now, at the end of 2009, in the small print on NAMA business plan, they claim that they have only seen aggregate data… and so blah blah blah

So what happened, between the guarantee and now… Why hasnt a bunch of auditors been in every bank in the land… locking filing cabinets, requisitioning data backups….. and doing the hard work of double checking the aggregate data, by getting their own low level data….
And making this available to OECD,CAB,NAMA….

Without that work, everyone is flying blind… and were just listening to expert opinions…..whether honestly held, biased, or just paid PR… depends on what your opinion of the experts is….

The minister is playing a game by not releasing data…. he can claim outside opinions are BS… but either the opinions on the inside are BS, or else they have done the audit and for whatever reason they cannot release the data…. There can be good and bad reasons for not releasing the data..

But if they have done the work, then they should remove the excuses in the NAMA business plan…. Put it out that they have analyzed the assets and the plan is based on reality….

Unfortunately I don’t trust our senior officers to run a military coup properly… it’s a pity our President has neither the brains nor the bravery to cause a constitutional crisis and bring the government down. Because if the government doesn’t fall NAMA will go through.

The 46 economists did not just sigh a letter, they went into huge detail about what was wrong. They went out of their way to be constructive. However, they were ignored because what was being souught was total submission. This trait is extremely dangerous in a politician. Just look at the “True Economics” web site of Constantin Gurdgiev where there has been trojan work carried out on all aspects of NAMA for anyone including Mr. Lenihan to see. One should always listen less to the people you are remunerating than those whom you are not. Morgen Kelly too, has told him what he did not want to hear, you do not shoot messengers especially when they are bringing you invaluable information.

NAMA is about politics, psychology, power, it represents the nexus between power and influence and finally, belatedly, it is about economic policy. He is pretending to concentrating on the economic aspects because he does not want the other aspects to be teased out! It is quite a clever strategy. When in doubt, go on the attack and keep these people off balance as your creation creeps over the line.

Pat Kenny, said to him “you do realise, that if this NAMA fails you will be go down in Irish history ignominiously?” he said. ” I do!” But it sounded like it was an answer he reading from a book. It was devoid of any sense of responsibility. There is a serious disconnect in this man between what he is doing and its consequences for the ordinary citizen. Later on the press will suddenly “discover” this disconnect but only when it suits them.

Some where, in his head he knows what is going to happen next. He is about to be consumed by his own creation. I don’t feel sorry for him and the position he has put himself in because, he has gambled our futures and lost! He is just one man who has gambled the future of hundreds of thousands of people and he wants adulation not analysis?

I hope this posting is polite enough because I have deliberately tried to keep it polite!

(A) Enough academic economists signed a letter opposing Nama, or

(B) All civil servants told all they know about our banking crisis and about Nama (both of which the government are/will blame them for) to Fintan O’Toole, Ken Fox or Clifford from the Tribune, or Gene Kerrigan

Nama would be stopped. This has nothing to do with violent protest or military coups, both of which I utterly oppose. We are a democracy.
Lets not behave like bondholders, who have brought down many democracies and reduced millions to starvation.

Tell them to please take over RTE before the Gerry Ryan show starts if possible too. Thanks.

1. Brian Lenihan has attacked critics of Nama by saying that they are attacking the public service.
2. He just made a speech saying that public servants should take more responsibility (and get more credit. But I doubt that is how he is thinking).
3. When Nama fails he won’t be taking the blame.

My suggestion, and I am making it purely in a personal capacity, is that you should pass on any information you have to Fintan O’Toole, whom you can trust to use it responsibly.

Remember, when this fails Lenihan will blame the public servants. And it will wreck the country for a decade.

P.S. I am not Fintan O’Toole

The fact is Karl, you can get away with a lot of mediocrity in this country and very few people challenge you properly about it. That is not to say however, we cannot be civil to one another in general dealings - especially, where the younger students and graduate students are concerned. It is certainly important to build up their confidence levels.

Perhaps my choice of the words ‘closed culture’ were chosen in too much haste. But certainly, I believe the minister for Finance has struck on an important point concerning professionalism in Ireland. For what it is worth, I will stick to my guns and I do appreciate the minister coming out and admitting to problems we may have as a nation, in how we expose mediocrity for what it is.

OTOH, I find the contributions made by Karl Whelan, whenever I have taken the time to read them, extremely good and fall in line generally with my own ideas about economics and property. I also like reading Morgan Kelly and Pat McArdle, as well as a couple of others. I am greatful for all your efforts in contributing to the debate, and long may you continue to do so.

Regards, Thanks for the reply. B.

When?

‘We the undersigned would like to make it clear that we have NOT told Brian Lenihan privately that we support NAMA’.

So much for the efforts of this blog to keep politics out of it. It’s coming to get you.

A component of this is an appeal to more than logic.

The minister is seeking to evoke feelings that

46 have left us down
46 arent old enough to understand
46 dont represent the majority
46 exist in a priviledged existence
etc, etc

Evoke back!

@ BOH: Both architecture and economics have the letters e,c and i too!

Al

For what it’s worth, I don’t at all recognise Irish economics as the “closed culture” you and the Minister describe.

Remember that these are the same group of folks that regularly evoke the joke about “ask 5 economists a question and you’ll get 6 opinions”. Economics being a non-experimental discipline, there are usually many competing ways to interpet the evidence and thus there are regular disagreements about all sorts of things.

Even more errie, the Chicago school of architects dominated the world scene and discussion, and practice at roughly the same time that the Economics equivalents did.

I happen to agree totally with minister Brian Lenehan on the paragraph quoted above by Karl Whelan. As a general observation, BL is correct. The other ‘closed culture’ which closely resembles that of Irish economists, is that of Irish architects. It is impossible in a small country such as ours, to simply let fly at a fellow Irish architect, to tell them they are completely of s*** and they produce atrocious projects. Even with sufficient drink on you, there is something that holds you back from doing it.

I think the basic danger, is they will lie in the long grass, if it takes an entire decade and the first little trip up you make, out they pop with their poison dart gun and get you in the neck. You’re gone.

It has happened to me a couple of times, with the same fatal consequences I can assure you. It always comes back to you, when you least expect it too. Normally, when your life is going quite peach-y, and you think, now what can go wrong?

But the sum total of it all, is it doesn’t lead to good economics, nor does it lead to good architectural design and buildings.

BTW, I blogged something myself at Designcomment blog about the dodgy designs for the new Mater hospital. Now think about it, a capital investment of €750m and it will probably function like a condom put on backways. I wouldn’t exactly encourage people to stay in the new Mater hopsital.

We build public projects all over the place and designers get away with it - worse, they know they will get away with it - because there is no system by which we review projects having been built, to see how they would perform. The designers certainly will not sign up to such a review process.

Also, you read any architectural publication in Ireland. You will never see a review written by a client who points out all of the faults and shortcomings of the project. Instead you read the designers own essay, which fills the page with crap about their ideas on design.