This article is about the need for a third benchmarking exercise. But before getting to the meat of it, there are a few misconceptions -- ones sadly typical to economic debate today -- that need knocking on the head.

In a new book, Back from the Brink, I have decided to confront the negative economists: the advancing army of zombie economists who are destroying confidence in our economy and our international reputation. It is time to don the garlic, whip out the crucifix, sharpen those stakes and get to work.

The zombie analogy isn't as far-fetched as you might think. When Shane Ross last Sunday described UCD economist Morgan Kelly as the "hero" of the Kenmare economists' conference, he was referring to a speech given by Morgan in which he used the word "zombie" at least four times to describe the banks.

Shane also described Morgan as the first person to expose the property bubble. Shane's expose of Fas (with Nick Webb) makes him a bit of a hero, but being one doesn't mean you can spot one.

Unlike Morgan Kelly, Derek Brawn gave a speech at the same conference which used facts and figures to illustrate a more moderate and rational view of our housing market. He also went to the bother of writing a book that -- although I disagree with it -- causes me to bow in respect to the man, particularly as he has paid a high price for saying what he did. With a secure and highly paid position in UCD, Morgan has taken no such chances and for someone with a PhD to give a presentation that was far less rigorous than Derek's, did him no credit. If there was a hero in Kenmare, it was Derek, not Morgan.

Nonetheless, Morgan's presence at Kenmare was welcome and valuable. In a nightmarish description of flesh-eating zombie banks and an equally nightmarish prediction of economic, political and social collapse, he kept us enthralled.

In a fit of indignation, one fellow economist suggested such scary stories should be barred from the conference. I disagreed. Recalling Voltaire, "I might not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", I defended Morgan's freedom. Voltaire aside, the sheer entertainment value of Morgan's presentation was cracking good stuff. Short of rotating his head by 360 degrees and ejaculating green projectile vomit, he made the Exorcist look like a chick flick.

But quoting Voltaire is one thing, defending the freedom of those in the public pay to speak out is quite another.

Take David McWilliams for example. Last Sunday he wrote that unemployment was heading for 500,000. Now either he knows this is wrong but is grabbing our attention with hype, or he confuses the Live Register (which is at 424,000 but is falling rapidly) with unemployment (which is 260,000 at the last count and beginning to stabilise).

Either way, it doesn't matter. We aren't paying him a professorial salary of over €150,000 a year and thereby sacrificing five primary school teaching positions to keep him in employment. So David can say what he damn well likes and more power to him.

As for the first person to expose the property bubble, it arose from a study done by the OECD in August 2005 and the credit for exposing it goes not to any economist, but to the hard graft of Emmet Oliver, then with the Irish Times. But back to benchmarking. Cutting public sector pay by €1.3bn is a sad necessity. But how should it be done?

Private sector pay is too high for our competitiveness, this much we know. We know also that public pay is between 10 and 30 per cent higher than private sector pay. And we know that the logic behind public sector pay differences for those doing similar work belongs in Alice in Wonderland. Many university and institute of technology staff often do less than 100 hours of student-relevant work per year. By contrast, primary and secondary school teachers face 35-hour weeks being psychologically barraged and used as substitutes for the emotional and social work that was once the job of parents.

So why do professors earn more here than in any other EU country, more than German government ministers and five times more than primary school teachers? And why are qualified junior gardai fighting a rising tide of vicious crime unable to buy houses in our main towns and cities, while politically appointed heads of quangos earn more than Barack Obama?

The point is that ensuring the fairness and equity of the cuts in public pay is just as important to our economic and political stability as realising the total amount of money to be saved. If implemented properly, a third benchmarking exercise can guarantee both. by tackling the ridiculous differentials both within the public sector and between public and private sector, it can then backdate resultant cuts (in some cases rises might be justified) to December to ensure that the total required savings are achieved.

The government can shove a rope between the patient's teeth and use a rusty saw. Or it can use laser surgery. The latter option takes more time. If backdated, the net economic result of the latter approach is the same but the social outcome is more equitable and stable.

The truth is that despite negative inflation, low-paid public servants can't afford to buy the things -- cars and houses -- the prices of which are falling the most. They can barely afford to live at all. So asking them to take the same percentage cuts as those on far higher pay level will induce justified rage. And it will get the public on their side. What results -- in political and economic terms -- could be so horrendous even Morgan Kelly at his most gothic couldn't imagine it.

As for next year's Kenmare conference, I suggest a simple maxim to its organisers: Less Brain and more Brawn.

'Who was to blame for the recession, Bertie or the Bankers?' Tune into 'Coleman at Large' tomorrow at 10pm on Newstalk 106-108fm

Sunday Independent