Isabel Hilton, editor of openDemocracy.net, has set an interesting challenge. Noting that The Economist, "the weekly vade mecum of the global business classes", rarely produces reports on the state of Britain, she points to the magazine's lengthy survey, entitled Britannia Redux.
You need to read the full article to grasp it properly. But, in precis, it argues that Britain has done well out of globalisation because the 25 years of policy changes that began under the government of Margaret Thatcher produced a flexible and competitive economy, albeit in a more unequal society.
But The Economist wonders whether that early success is sustainable, pointing to several "weak points": increasing red tape and rising taxes; an education and skills deficit; an increasing challenge from Indian and Chinese graduates; and a growing social malaise that reflects a lack of social cohesion, insecure employment, a widening wealth gap and dislocation caused by inward migration.
The report also warns that the continuing deficiencies of the British education system could be our Achilles heel because Britain is outperformed in educational attainment by countries as diverse as Ireland and South Korea.
Well, you get the drift. So Hilton asks: how accurate and comprehensive a picture does The Economist present? She has invited openDemocracy's writers to comment and promises to publish their responses. But my question is slightly different: what makes The Economist so influential? In north America, where it sells more than half its circulation of 1.13m a week, it is taken very seriously indeed. In Britain, where it sells 162,000 (just 14% of its total circulation) it maintains a high reputation. It is read by the élite in virtually every country across the globe.
I have just written an article for a French magazine on The Economist's institutional status and, in so doing, found little to fault. It is, of course, easy to lob bricks at it. Stephen Glover heaves one in today's Independent by referring to its journalists as "clever clogs perched in their ivory tower in St James's." But we should be proud of their cleverness, should we not?
