Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Brexit and the EU Official Languages

The EU currently has 24 official languages: Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. This is slightly less than the number of member states: 28. The reason for this is that each country can propose one of its official languages, and some countries share official languages: Belgium with France, the Netherlands and Germany; Luxembourg with France and Germany; Austria with Germany; and Cyprus with Greece.

English was not an official language of the EU when the EEC was formed in 1957. It only became an official languages of the EU after the UK (and Ireland) joined in 1973.

The other countries with English as an official language are Ireland and Malta. Each of these nominated another language as an official language of the EU: Irish and Maltese.

This brings up the question, will English be abandoned by the EU if the UK leaves the Union? It would seem quite likely, unless the EU decides to bend the rules, or Ireland or Malta decide to replace one of their languages in Brussels with English.

The French are bound to be pleased about this.

Saturday, 16 April 2016

What's in a Name?

The Czech Republic is tired of its long name and wants to be called Czechia from now on.

What a shame.

The country already has a name. A beautiful one, with all kinds of pleasant connotations and a long history.

That name is Bohemia.

The usual argument against this name is that Bohemia is but one part of the country today, the other two being Moravia and Bohemian Silesia. Yet this is a historical fact: the Bohemian Kingdom absorbed Moravia and Silesia centuries ago (although it later lost much of Silesia to Prussia). Many other countries apply the name of a core region to a wider area.

Linguistically, this choice is strange too. In Czech, there is no difference between 'Bohemian' and 'Czech', and the Czech name for Bohemia, Čechy, is often used to denote the whole country anyway. The more recently invented short name, Česko, is just as Bohemian-centric as Čechy. So putting forward Czechia as a more inclusive name for the country only works in languages other than Czech. And this is more than a little awkward.

More importantly, think of the benefits of reclaiming the country's traditional name for tourism. Bohemian holidays has a sound that  Czech holidays can't ever match.

The unofficial national anthem would be the Bohemian Rhapsody. Or the official one.

The Bohemian ice hockey team would wear jerseys that don't say 'Check ya!'.

The Bohemian Army, Bohemian foreign policy, and Bohemian diplomacy would befit the means and abilities of a small country.

And let us not forget about the Bohemian President. The current one, chain-smoking, booze loving Miloš Zeman, fits the job description perfectly.



Monday, 13 July 2015

Friday the 13th (Epilogue)

Just over a year ago, I wrote a paper (coauthored with J.D. Tena) on whether the number 13 and Friday the 13th really bring bad luck (see a short write up about it here: Friday the 13th). Specifically, we consider whether people born on the 13th (any day of the week) or on Friday the 13th were more or less lucky than other people. To measure luck, we look at mundane but important outcomes: employment, wages and marriage. Reassuringly, we find that those born on an unlucky day are little different from everyone else.

The paper was first circulated on Friday the 13th of June, 2014. It was issued as WP 13 of the Economics and Finance Working Paper Series at Brunel University. It counted exactly 13 pages.

When we submitted it for publication, it was rejected. Five times in five different journals.

Then, before submitting it for the sixth time, I changed the spacing from single to 1.5. This new version of our paper counted 16 rather than 13 pages.

That version was accepted for publication in Kyklos with only minor changes.

The lesson that budding researchers should take from this is clear. Don't submit single-spaced papers. Ever. It brings bad luck.

Friday, 8 May 2015

Post-election Musings: UK 2015

I looked at the BBC website this morning and thought: What the hell has just happened?

All polls were predicting a hung-parliament, with no party claiming a majority of the seats and no 'natural' coalition on the cards. Instead, the Tory Party is back and set to rule alone.

It doesn't end there. Scotland has turned into a one-party country, with the Scottish National Party (SNP) taking 56 seats out of 59 (Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems getting one seat each). Kim Jong-Un will be sending his emissaries to Edinburgh soon: they will want to find out how Nicola Sturgeon achieved democratically what he, (and his father and grandfather) only accomplished with the aid of extraordinary harsh repression. Putin's delegation will not be far behind.

The first-past-the-post system delivered some interesting outcomes. The SNP got 4.8% of the overall vote and 56 seats, the Lib-Dems got 7.8% of votes and 8 seats, UKIP got 12.6% of votes and 1 seat. Although extreme views are fairly common in the UK, they have almost no chance of getting represented in the Parliament. In Scotland, however, nationalism is now mainstream.

I used to think that the big question of this election was the EU: the Tories promised a referendum on leaving the Union. Now, it seems that if they do and England votes to leave, Scotland will vote to stay. With the support that the SNP enjoys right now, this would be a convenient excuse for another independence referendum. The most likely outcome will be that the Tories will continue to grumble but nothing much will happen.

The most interesting issue of this election is one of democratic accountability on the background of mass migration. I am not talking about the fact that the EU immigration was a big issue in this election (which it was). Rather, what I am referring to is the fact that there are some 2 million EU citizens living in the UK who are politically disenfranchised because they do not hold UK passports. Many of them have moved here to stay for the long term (like me). The EU migrants are here perfectly legally, are subject to UK rules and policies, pay taxes, yet have no influence on who gets to form the next government. They face few practical restrictions in the UK (the right to reside and work is automatic and not discretionary for EU citizens) and therefore have little incentive to change their nationality.

Some of them may be allowed to vote in their home countries, where they have not lived for years. That seems equally odd.

We have free movement of people without the ability to transfer one's voting rights to the destination country. Somehow, the wise men in Brussels forgot about this one.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

Friday the 13th



For some, Friday the 13th of February will be just another working day. For others, it will be a reason to take a day off and stay at home, safely out of the way of potential misfortunes that might befall them on this unlucky day: in most of Europe, the number 13 is considered unlucky and Friday the 13th is thought to be a particularly unlucky day.

Given how irrational such beliefs in lucky and unlucky numbers are, they are surprisingly wide-spread. Many airlines don’t have the 13th row of seats; hotels don’t have rooms with 13 in the number or the 13th floor, some streets don’t have a house No. 13 (and if there is such a house, it tends to sell for less than other similar houses in the same street). Airfares also tend to be cheaper on Friday the 13th. Other similarly irrational beliefs include avoiding black cats in your path, not breaking mirrors, following the advice of fortune-tellers and astrologers or accepting that the specific constellation of stars and planets on the day (and even hour) of your birth is going to have a lasting effect on your wellbeing, love-life and career.

So is there anything to it?

The problem is, testing bad luck is tricky. For instance, there are supposedly fewer car accidents when it is Friday the 13th, but that seems because people tend to drive more carefully (or not at all) on that day. In other words, superstitious people are likely to change their behavior on unlucky days, which may be enough to bias the results.

In a joint paper with J.D. Tena (published in Kyklos, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/kykl.12085/abstract), we try to get around this problem by looking at an outcome that cannot be changed easily by behavioral adjustments: date of birth. Determined parents can make sure that their child is not born on Friday the 13th – but how many would plan conception after consulting the calendar to make sure there is no Friday the 13th some 8-9 months ahead (most years have one or two, some, like 2015, have three). But once you were born on an unlucky day, there is not much you can do about it.

We consider three rather fundamental outcomes that have substantial impact on one’s quality of life: wage, employment, and marriage. Even relatively small differences in wages or in the employment (marriage) probability would have important welfare implications when considered over one’s entire lifetime. We base our analysis on the UK Labor Force Survey (1999 to 2011), with information on nearly 4 million individuals. We consider both those born on the 13th (any day) and on Friday the 13th. We use standard regression analysis as well as a matching approach.

Reassuringly, regardless of the outcome considered, methodology used or whether we look at birth on the 13th or on Friday the 13th, we find no impact of being born on an unlucky day. In other words, superstition really only is in the minds of those who believe in it. Once you look at the data and consider outcomes that cannot be changed easily by short-term behavioral adjustments, Friday the 13th is neither particularly lucky nor unlucky.

But in case you are still not convinced, the days to watch out for this year (2015) are 13th February, 13th March and 13th November.

Friday, 3 October 2014

On the Importance of Being a Man

One of the funnier stories of this past week has been the one about Kim Jong-Un’s disappearance. Kim III has not been seen in public or on TV for almost a month. In a country where personality cult is the chosen style of government, this is unusual to say the least.

One of the reported reasons for his absence is that he broke both of his ankles after touring a number of military bases and factories while wearing high-heeled shoes. The heels and his weight – he is reported to weigh over 120kg – proved too much for the young Marshall to handle and he required surgery and an extended stay in hospital.

Why would Kim III wear high heels? To appear taller, of course. His height is reported to be 1.75m although this may well be after putting on his heels.

Height is an important hallmark of masculinity. Research backs this up: tall men are more confident, earn more, acquire more education, get promoted faster, have better health, and marry earlier and have attractive wives. Height is also important for politicians: American presidents are almost always rather tall: Obama 1.85m, Bush Jr 1.82m, Clinton 1.88m, Bush Sr 1.88m, Reagan 1.85m, and so on. In fact, only four presidents during the past 100 years were below 1.8m: Carter (1.77), Eisenhower (1.79), Truman (1.75) and Coolidge (1.78). And out of the 24 presidential contexts during the past 100 years, the winner was shorter than the loser only five times. To look down at a US president, Kim would have to time-travel back to 1900-04 to the presidency of McKinley who measured mere 1.7m.

For the record, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are both 1.85m while Gordon Brown and Tonny Blair are 1.8m and 1.83m, respectively. The average height of a white male in England is 1.75m. 

Wearing heels, of course, is just one way how a leader of a country can demonstrate his manliness. Another option is showing up with a young and attractive woman by his side (or women, incidentally, Berlusconi is 1.65m tall) or marrying a well-known singer (Sarkozy is also 1.65m) or athlete. He can also prove his worth by doing plenty of manly things: riding a horse bare-chested, piloting an ultra-light leading a flock of migratory birds, piloting a submersible, flying a jet, shooting a tiger, hugging a polar bear, scuba-diving and finding ancient treasure, playing ice hockey with the boys, riding a Harley Davidson or a Formula 1, getting a black belt in martial arts. And invading a country or two.

I bet Putin (1.7m) must be really annoyed that Ukrainians recently elected someone who towers over him in meetings. 

Friday, 4 October 2013

Scotland, we want you to stay. Well, not really.

The referendum on Scottish independence was negotiated by a Conservative PM. It is to be held in September 2014. The next UK general election will be help in May 2015 and therefore may not include Scotland, if it becomes independent in the meantime. Coincidence? Not necessarily.

David Cameron has stated that his party wants Scotland to stay. He could not really say otherwise, at least not publicly. But the facts are such that his party stands to gain from losing Scotland. The Conservative Party has most of its support south of the border: at present, it only has one MP in Scotland. With Scotland gone, the Conservatives will be in a much better position to win in the remainder of the UK. Labour, on the other hand, will be marginalized without their Scottish MPs in Westminster. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg.

Despite Cameron’s rhetoric, The Conservatives may be as keen on Scottish independence as the Scots.