Innocent Fraud & Northey Island

Am off to Northey Island later in the afternoon for a little camping trip and party. The family of one of the hosts (Jonny's brother's partner) apparently used to own the island, but it has since been given to the National Trust. Not quite sure about the location of the island as google does not seem to be very useful. According to http://www.wuffings.co.uk/WuffSites/Maldon.htm, the 'ancient causeway' linking Northey Island to Maldon was the site of the Battle of Maldon in August 991. Jonny said I could have a try at driving his car later at Northey Island. Should I give it a shot? :p

This morning's little read was Galbraith (2004). The economics of innocent fraud, London: Penguin. It's a delightful little volume. As Galbraith says on page 11, '(t)his essay is not a totally solemn exercise. A marker enjoyment can be found in identifying self-serving belief and contrived nonsense. So it has been for the author and so he hopes it will be for the reader'.

Now, '(h)ow can fraud be innocent? How can innocence be fraudulent?' Galbraith says that the answer is of no slight significance, for innocent, lawful fraud has an undoubted role in private life and public discourse. However, by neither thos so believing nor those so guiding is there spoken recognition of that fact. There is, to emphasise, no sense of guilt or responsibility' (page 13). He also says that '(m)ost progenitors of what I intend to identify as innocent fraud are not deliberately in its service. They are unaware of how their views are shaped, how they are had. No clear legal question is involved' (page 11).

Examples of innocent fraud cited in the book: the renaming of 'capitalism' to 'the market system' to eliminate the negative connotations of the former and to disguise the power of management and corporations over consumers in the economy; the discussion of the private and public sectors as separate despite being increasingly mixed and indistinguishable, etc.

I think I will use term 'innocent fraud' in my dissertation: that school (or erhem, parental) choice policies are discussed by its proponents as if schools are free market participants, that they themselves have no power, and that parents have all the power. Is this really so? (Well, obviously not. Just read Gewirtz, Ball, Bowe, Gillborn, Youdell, Reay, West, Pennell, etc etc etc.)