Labour’s Rachel Reeves urged to ‘explain herself amid ‘plagiarism’ row over 20 examples of other people’s unattributed work found in her new book – as shadow chancellor insists they are ‘inadvertent mistakes’

• She said ‘inadvertent mistakes’ in The Women Who Made Modern Economics

Labour’s Rachel Reeves is at the centre of a row over alleged plagiarism today after 20 unattributed examples of other people’s work were found in her new book. 

The shadow chancellor admitted ‘inadvertent mistakes’ had been made in The Women Who Made Modern Economics after the FT reported its journalists had identified entire paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgement.

It includes includes material from Wikipedia, The Guardian newspaper and remarks made by Labour MP Hilary Benn without attribution.

Basic Books, the publisher, defended the Labour frontbencher, saying she had not sought to present the material as original research but acknowledged that ‘factual sentences’ were not properly referenced in every instance. 

A spokesperson for Ms Reeves said: ‘These were inadvertent mistakes and will be rectified in future reprints.’

But Tory chairman Greg Hands said: ‘This is potentially very serious. For example, three German cabinet ministers have resigned since 2011 due to plagiarism – plagiarism which was much longer ago than these allegations in today’s FT.

‘Rachel Reeves needs to explain herself urgently.’

The shadow chancellor admitted ‘inadvertent mistakes’ had been made in The Women Who Made Modern Economics after the FT reported its journalists had identified entire paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgement.

It included includes material from Wikipedia, The Guardian newspaper and remarks made by Labour MP Hilary Benn without attribution.

The FT reported more than 20 examples had been found using manual checks rather than plagiarism detection software.

The book by Ms Reeves, who hopes to become the first woman to serve as UK chancellor after a general election expected next year, gives biographical accounts of some of the women whose ideas have shaped modern economics.

A sentence on the relationship between HG Wells and economist Beatrice Webb is exactly the same as one found on Wikipedia: ‘He responded by lampooning the couple in his 1911 novel The New Machiavelli as Altiora and Oscar Bailey, a pair of short-sighted, bourgeois manipulators.’

Similarly, a foreword to a report on international development by Mr Benn, published on the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change website, appears to have been lifted almost word for word.

Mr Benn wrote: ‘When we were elected in 1997, the amount of aid we gave as a proportion of our national income had halved over the preceding 18 years and was just 0.26 per cent.

‘By the time we left office, we were on our way to achieving the 0.7 per cent target.

‘This was down to the political leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who brought the lives of the world’s poorest people into the heart of Whitehall.’

Ms Reeves wrote: ‘When Labour was elected in 1997, the amount of aid the UK gave as a proportion of our national income had halved over the preceding 18 years and stood at just 0.26 per cent.

‘By the end of Labour’s time in office, in 2010, we were on our way to achieving the 0.7 per cent target.

‘This was down to the political leadership of Blair and Gordon Brown – and their first Secretary of State for International Development from 1997 to 2002, Clare Short, who brought the lives of the world’s poorest people into the heart of government.’

The FT also compared a sentence on the website Rethinkingpoverty.org.uk – ‘Laurencina was the daughter of a Liverpool merchant, Lawrence Heyworth, whose own family had been weavers at Bacup in Lancashire’ – to one on in Ms Reeves’ book – ‘Lawrencina was the daughter of a Liverpool merchant, Lawrence Heyworth, whose own family had been weavers at Bacup in Lancashire’ – in which only the spelling of the name is different.

Basic Books said in a statement: ‘There is an extensive and selective bibliography of over 200 books, articles and interviews.

‘Where facts are taken from multiple sources, no author would be expected to reference each and every one,’ the publisher said in a statement.

‘When factual sentences were taken from primary sources, they should have been rewritten and properly referenced.

‘We acknowledge this did not happen in every case.

‘As always in instances such as these, we will review all sources and ensure any omissions are rectified in future reprints.’

Source: Read Full Article