The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s accompanied by the dynamic engagement of China in international trade and supply chains ushered in a period of optimism about the global order. It has only recently begun to dissipate. Now, shifts in great power relationships are once again generating conflict. At the same time, there is also a growing awareness that there remains a fundamental difference in the values involved in the domestic organisation of power in democracies compared with autocracies which then spills over into differences about the values that apply in the global space. Optimism may have gone, but there is considerable confusion about how to react to the new setting.

Russia's invasion of the Ukraine has upended what we have come to regard as the 'normal' relationship between politics and regulation. It involves a response that only governments can make - not regulators. The inexorable rise of what is termed 'the regulatory state' seems to have come to a halt. This blog looks at the new policy environment and at how far we can expect the relationship between politicians  and regulators eventually to swing back towards regulation as the preferred tool.  

This blog looks at the idea of the ‘Anglosphere’. The most recent use of the term has come in the context of the Sept 2021 AUKUS security agreement on nuclear submarine, AI and other technologies, between Australia, the UK and the US. The Anglosphere is a term without a clear and fixed definition and with many ambiguities around the use of the term. This blog looks at the different components of what might be conveyed by its use.

With democratic forms of government seemingly in retreat, this blog looks at different approaches to visualising the connection between the values and beliefs held in a society with democratic forms of government.

​It is an axiom of democratic systems of government that public authority should always be subject to oversight so that those entrusted with authority do not abuse or overstep their power. Thus, legislatures establish committees of their members to watch over the executive departments of government, and judiciaries stand ready to review acts of both the executive and legislative branches.
 
This traditional kind of model still provides the backbone of democratic oversight. However, a newer and different kind of review process has become established to watch over key functions of government. Regulatory review has become established to watch over the regulatory functions of government (see blog of dec 1 2021) and budget review processes have been established to watch over the fiscal functions of government. What regulatory review and fiscal review share in common is the need for specialised knowledge and expertise to carry out the review. 
 
This blog looks briefly at fiscal review. It asks whether it offers more general lessons for review functions. 

As the world recovers from the COVID pandemic, cities are refilling again with office workers, students, commuters, and tourists. The crowds once again provide a daily illustration of the enormous social diversity to be found in urban environments. They also carry with them the differences of dress and appearance that offer the superficial and sometimes misleading symbols of social differences.
 
Some people clearly enjoy the spectrum of diversity, seek it out and flourish in it. But for others it is an unsettling patchwork and a source of stress. Democracies often struggle in the face of deep social differences. Instead of reacting positively to the challenges of the modern world, people may react protectively and defensively. Essential democratic practices such as civility, consent to loss in electoral contests and acceptance of the system of rulemaking despite disagreement with particular pieces of law-making, all come under pressure. The ability to cooperate and to take collective action is blocked. Tempers rise. Democracies decline. 
 
This blog looks at the nature of the challenge and possible responses.

​Representative democracies treat each citizen’s vote as equal to another. The ballot box is blind to personal differences such as educational attainment, social status, race, religion or income level. In contrast, the politics of identity focuses on personal characteristics. Gender, race, ethnicity, income and other characteristics of a voter may all be identifiers. 
 
The division between the politics of representation at the ballot box and the politics of identity is often blurred in practice. Political parties competing at the ballot box may appeal to particular income, or religious groups, or to particular ethnicities. Nevertheless, there remains an important difference in principle between collective association based on each person counting the same and collective association reflecting character. 
 
In recent times there appears to be increasing assertion of the politics of identity reflecting frustration with the politics of representation. The growing tension between the politics of representation and the politics of identity contributes to a sense that democratic societies are becoming more polarised and fragmented. This blog looks at the sources of the tension.