As I wrote on Conservative Home yesterday, I have no problem that the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), takes a centre-left approach to the CSR of the Coalition Government. In fact it is healthy for our democracy for economic and public spending to be debated in this way. But is it right that the IFS takes such a large proportion of its income directly or indirectly from the Taxpayer?
Ninety-five percent of their £5.1 million funding comes from "research contracts", but detailed information for these "research contracts" is not published in their accounts. However, ninety percent of their Funding Bodies are Government, the public sector, think tanks, or charitable organisations.
IFS major clients include:
- The BBC
- The European Commission
- Her Majesty's Treasury
- Department of Work and Pensions
- Government Equalities Office
- Department for International Development
- Department of Health
- Department of Trade and Industry
- Department for Education
- Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland
- Inland Revenue
- Food Standards Agency
- International Monetary Fund
- Low Pay Commission
- Office of National Statistics
- Office of the First and Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland
In 2009, the IFS received a substantial part of their core funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), worth up to £6.8 million over five years. ESRC in turn is funded by the Department for Trade and Industry.
P.S. You might like to see the Commons Motion, I have tabled on this HERE.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com
Rob, George Osborne has been only too happy to use IFS findings to beat Labour with over the years. It was even the subject of a Channel 4 Factcheck blog during the election.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the IFS thought Tory tax plans were unclear in the run-up to the election (they were) and the fact the Government's spending review hits the poorest hardest is demonstrably true. If they were biased, surely they'd be biased in favour of their paymasters the government?
You can't try to starve an institution doing good research of its funding just because you don't want to believe what it finds this week. It's hardly better to have a think tank which is funded privately, because private financiers will back findings biased to their interests.
You'll have think tanks partly funded by oil or tobacco companies, as they fund the Tea Party in the US, publishing compliant 'research'. Far better to have an independent voice, as much as this is ever possible, and sour grapes on your part if you don't like what their research suggests you are doing to this country and its taxpayers.
The IFS publishes information you don't like and you question its funding. What are you, a politician in a democracy or a little fascist in the making?
ReplyDeleteThe IFS receives around 55% of its income from the ESRC for the commissioning of projects. Your list omits some of itst other clients, for example:
ReplyDeleteChartered Institute of Taxation
Esmee fairbairn Trust
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Gatsby Foundation
Help the Aged (Age UK)
International Monetary Fund
Joseph Rowntree Trust
Kings Fund
McKinsey Global Institute
Nuffield Foundation
Leverhulme Trust
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Yes, some of these groups may be left of centre, but who else is going to fund research into the social and economic impact of tax policy on the more deprived sectors of society? And the income is for work undertaken for these groups - the IFS would not receive income otherwise.
{source: IFS website and annual accounts]
Simon Carter
(former subscriber to the IFS)
You are fooling no-one.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it surprising that they get 95% of their income from research grants? They are a research centre - that is what they do! I would have been more intrigued where the other 5% comes from.
There is nothing centre-left about labelling something regressive - it is a word with a specific technical definition. The IFS has explicitly said that it makes no comment on fairness, which is something different altogether. As soon as Osborne claimed that the budget was progressive, he left himself open to a perfectly objective assessment of whether or not that claim is true.