Talk:Institute for Fiscal Studies

Untitled

In the dıck taverne artıcle, ıt claıms that In 1979, bankrolled by his friend David Sainsbury's Gatsby Foundation, he founded the Institute for Fiscal Studies, now an influential independent think tank. Whıle ın thıs artıcles ıt barely mentıons hım, other than hım beıng a dırector ın 1979. Can thıs be remedıed by someone who knows about thıs?

--85.103.74.102 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry about the i`s I am on holıday ın turkey an theır ıs a dodgy keyboard

I dont think this is the case - the IFS was founded back in 1969 I think.

Conflict of interest

Please note that most of the text of this article was added by the IP 194.66.89.186. Whois resolves this to the Institute for Fiscal Studies itself. This may not be much of a problem but it does mean the text needs to be carefully checked. I think most of it comes from an article I cited in writing the biography of IFS founder chairman William Hopper (politician). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The IFS was clearly set up by a right-wing group. I have inserted the political parties of the people mentioned where I can in the article. The "independence" of the IFS has always been in question by the left, given the background of the founders, although Roy Jenkins of the Labour Party was in at the start. The recent study recommending Land Value Taxation was highly encouraging - Mirrlees Review of tax system recommends radical changes http://www.ifs.org.uk/pr/mirrlees_launch.pdf . LVT is not on the Tory radar and never has been, being too close to large landowners. Although a few Tory activists do laud LVT and actively campaign. LibDems and Labour do have big LVT supporters. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IFS Worldview?

Wondering if they're left or right wing, free market, socialist, etc... Toby Douglass (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The free-market is rigged. I may be wrong, but I cannot recall them ever noting it was or how to keep get it, and keep it, unrigged.94.194.102.190 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From the information given in the article, already, the IFS clearly encompasses - or tries to encompass - centrist. centre-right & further right-wing conservative positions but not left-wing Marxist or extreme state-interventionist views. The key dichotomy is between Keynesian vs other more ideological views (those of monetarist or pro-austerity, anti-state-stimulus tendencies). The claim of "political independence" by the IFS is clearly an attempt to pretend that there is some objective (i.e. inter-subjectively attestable, value-free) optimum position regardless of ideology. A partial consensus even across the right wing half of the political spectrum is to be welcomed but dressing this up as some sort of unassailable approach to 'scientific' truth is deliberately biased propaganda as bad as any on the left in the past two centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.42.150 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Membership

The notable people section talks about notable "former members". What is a member of the IFS? If there is such a thing then there needs to be a section on membership. If not, then the wording needs to change. CalzGuy (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Details of all or leading current members with brief academic, political and work experience background would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.42.150 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, COI, and promotionalism

1. This article is clearly written from the standpoint of the organization. Many phrases throughout the article assume the correctness of its analysis.
2. The history section contains information about individual motivations, which can only have been derived from the participants. Such information need a 3rd party reliable source, but the only source given is an article about the organization written by one of its officers. This material is therefore unverifiable and must be removed unless a true 3rd party source can be found
3. The article contains considerable detail about indivbidual staff positions, which is unlikely to be of itnerest to anyone outsiede the organization . That sort of material is considered promotional
4. The addition of a sectioncritizing the society does not compensate for this. Articles in WP are supposed to be written in a NPOV manner, not as proand con debating points. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Institute for Fiscal Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824082817/http://www.ifs.org.uk/centres/esrcIndex to http://www.ifs.org.uk/centres/esrcIndex
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527004733/http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/about.php to http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824082817/http://www.ifs.org.uk/centres/esrcIndex to http://www.ifs.org.uk/centres/esrcIndex
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724064757/http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/index.aspx to http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)