Sunday, May 02, 2004
HUNTING UNEMPLOYMENT
Well its been a bit quiet in here recently. I was reading about industrial change in the UK and Roger Hayter's (1997) thoughts on unemployment got me thinking about hunting and the unemployment that would result in the event of a ban going through.
The Burns Report (2000) states figures for potential job losses as varying from 4,000 to 22,000. The final figure used by Burns for direct and indirect employment was 5,724.
Burns argues that there would not be significant economic effects from a ban although he admits that skills are not easily transferable.
However have the antis who have seized this information considered the actual impact on those involved? Permanently laid off workers suffer shock, profound uncertainty and a loss of personal esteem. There is now a better understanding of the effects this can have which include sickness, stress, alcohol dependency, drug addiction and family abuse as long-term workers find themselves jobless. (Hayter 1997)
Perhaps I should clarify that above statement, I am not saying that if this unjust ban does go through that all the hunt staff will be taking drugs, whacking their wives and children and downing booze, but these are recognised social consequences of unemployment which could realistically affect those who lose their livelihoods in the event of the ban.
What about the way of life that is lost by these hunt staff, those who rely on the hunt employment not only for wages but their home and vehicle too?
What happens to those who are too young to retire, but who are considered too old to be retrained? One anti raised the point that a ban could be phased in over ten years and thus these older members of staff would reach retirement age and cease to be a problem, I have my doubts about that though.
Finally the economic impact may not be as dramatic as the changes in the agricultural sector (Burns 2000) but there is some pioneering work being completed at the University of Birmingham following on from Michael Storper's (1993 I think ) work on untraded interdependencies - Eminent economic geographers such as Professor Michael Taylor have identified a theory of embeddedness which states that the concepts of trust, reciprocity and loyalty are key drivers of economic prosperity; these become intertwined with other economic relationships within broader social structures of a place.
My point is that there is a certain way of doing business within the hunt country. If a farmer says the hunt may cross his land, the Fitzwilliam Hunt can rely on him not to withdraw this permission; in return if a hunt asks Mr Bowyer to remove a fox, they can rely on him to do so. This reciprocity is rife within the hunting community and extends to doing business with other rural services. A farmer knows the huntsman will pick up his fallen stock, whilst for example a feed merchant knows that as long as he provides goods at the right quality, the hunt will continue to use him as a key supplier. These feelings of trust enhance the economic performance of these businesses throughout the local area as networks of trust build up developed by relationships through the social benefits of the hunt.
Skills will be lost – there is no way that a member of the hunt staff finding employment flipping burgers in McDonalds can be classed as using the skills he previously held in a job that was secure and involved regular hours, not working shifts at the whim of his employer. (For a further discussion of this idea see the work of Naomi Klein 2001)
Finally theories of classical economics state that nations should engage in activities that they are most efficient at, our heavy industry was no longer competitive – therefore under these theories it shrunk as production moved to overseas locations. Hunting is still an efficient industry in the UK. It contributed a turnover of £213 million to the UK economy (BETA).
A big query I have is - what could hunt staff do as an alternative? Could they go back to any employment they had prior to hunt service? Or is this not a viable option? Would the Equestrian industry be able to absorb this many people? Would they be able to find employment overseas??
Who said geography was just capital cities and colouring in! I'm so sticking this down as an hour of economics revision!
The Burns Report (2000) states figures for potential job losses as varying from 4,000 to 22,000. The final figure used by Burns for direct and indirect employment was 5,724.
Burns argues that there would not be significant economic effects from a ban although he admits that skills are not easily transferable.
However have the antis who have seized this information considered the actual impact on those involved? Permanently laid off workers suffer shock, profound uncertainty and a loss of personal esteem. There is now a better understanding of the effects this can have which include sickness, stress, alcohol dependency, drug addiction and family abuse as long-term workers find themselves jobless. (Hayter 1997)
Perhaps I should clarify that above statement, I am not saying that if this unjust ban does go through that all the hunt staff will be taking drugs, whacking their wives and children and downing booze, but these are recognised social consequences of unemployment which could realistically affect those who lose their livelihoods in the event of the ban.
What about the way of life that is lost by these hunt staff, those who rely on the hunt employment not only for wages but their home and vehicle too?
What happens to those who are too young to retire, but who are considered too old to be retrained? One anti raised the point that a ban could be phased in over ten years and thus these older members of staff would reach retirement age and cease to be a problem, I have my doubts about that though.
Finally the economic impact may not be as dramatic as the changes in the agricultural sector (Burns 2000) but there is some pioneering work being completed at the University of Birmingham following on from Michael Storper's (1993 I think ) work on untraded interdependencies - Eminent economic geographers such as Professor Michael Taylor have identified a theory of embeddedness which states that the concepts of trust, reciprocity and loyalty are key drivers of economic prosperity; these become intertwined with other economic relationships within broader social structures of a place.
My point is that there is a certain way of doing business within the hunt country. If a farmer says the hunt may cross his land, the Fitzwilliam Hunt can rely on him not to withdraw this permission; in return if a hunt asks Mr Bowyer to remove a fox, they can rely on him to do so. This reciprocity is rife within the hunting community and extends to doing business with other rural services. A farmer knows the huntsman will pick up his fallen stock, whilst for example a feed merchant knows that as long as he provides goods at the right quality, the hunt will continue to use him as a key supplier. These feelings of trust enhance the economic performance of these businesses throughout the local area as networks of trust build up developed by relationships through the social benefits of the hunt.
Skills will be lost – there is no way that a member of the hunt staff finding employment flipping burgers in McDonalds can be classed as using the skills he previously held in a job that was secure and involved regular hours, not working shifts at the whim of his employer. (For a further discussion of this idea see the work of Naomi Klein 2001)
Finally theories of classical economics state that nations should engage in activities that they are most efficient at, our heavy industry was no longer competitive – therefore under these theories it shrunk as production moved to overseas locations. Hunting is still an efficient industry in the UK. It contributed a turnover of £213 million to the UK economy (BETA).
A big query I have is - what could hunt staff do as an alternative? Could they go back to any employment they had prior to hunt service? Or is this not a viable option? Would the Equestrian industry be able to absorb this many people? Would they be able to find employment overseas??
Who said geography was just capital cities and colouring in! I'm so sticking this down as an hour of economics revision!
