The former TV presenter David Icke, when he left the small screen to set up as a new age guru, developed a theory that the world is run by an elite group of giant alien lizards. The theory features in Jon Ronson’s very funny book [amazon_link id=”0330375458″ target=”_blank” ]Them: Adventures with Extremists[/amazon_link]. Since we read Them in my household, my husband has teased me about being a giant lizard every time I’ve been appointed to a public body or attended a fancy conference (he doesn’t mention it when I get an application rejected, nor every year when I don’t go to Davos).

[amazon_image id=”0330375458″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Them: Adventures with Extremists[/amazon_image]

The giant lizard theory came to mind after reading the chapters in Mark Mazower’s book [amazon_link id=”0141011939″ target=”_blank” ]Governing the World: The History of An Idea[/amazon_link] about the role of technocrats in shaping international governance in the early and mid-20th century.

The story has given me a new hero, the Belgian Paul Otlet, “the founder of modern information science and bibliographer extraordinary.” Otlet invented metadata, and created a Central Office of International Institutions to co-ordinate and share information among the growing number of new bodies, then congregating in Brussels. His aim was a ‘Universal Book’ in which all knowledge about knowledge would be recorded. I can’t believe I’ve never before heard of M. Otlet!

Of course his vision was one of the lesser casualties of World War I. The League of Nations subsequently also proved short-lived. But that era saw the creation of many of the technical agencies of international governance that survived the Depression and World War II and survive still. Mazower’s account of how this technical global elite came into being and the role it played in rebuilding trade and then globalisation is fascinating. Discussions of international governance tend to overlook the unglamorous end such as the ITU and the FAO and so on, but they turn out to be more resilient than the more political bodies.

So it isn’t the giant lizards but rather the statisticians and epidemiologists and engineers – all the geeks, in short –  who run the world. I don’t mind being called an internationalist geek.

[amazon_image id=”0141011939″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Governing the World: The History of an Idea[/amazon_image]

Thomas Sowell’s [amazon_link id=”0300126069″ target=”_blank” ]On Classical Economics[/amazon_link] ends with a chapter called ‘Thoughts on the History of Economics’. He writes: “What does classical economics have to say to us today? … Certainly one need not have read a word of Smith or Ricardo in order to get an economics degree, tenure, or an appointment to the Council of Economic Advisers. But if one is still old-fashioned enough to want to be an educated individual, then an understanding of how ideas evolve and how the dynamics of polemics can drive both parties to untenable positions should be part of that education.”

[amazon_image id=”0300126069″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]On Classical Economics[/amazon_image]

He continues: “While free market economics is regarded by many today as an old conservative idea, it was in fact one of the most revolutionary concepts to emerge in the long history of ideas…. The idea of a spontaneously self-equilibrating system – the market economy – first developed by the physiocrats and later made part of the tradition of classical economics by Adam Smith, represented a radical departure, not only in analysis of causation but also in seeing a reduced role for political, intellectual or other leaders as guides or controllers for the masses.”

I recently reviewed David Simpson’s new book, [amazon_link id=”1781951969″ target=”_blank” ]The Rediscovery of Classical Economics[/amazon_link], which puts recent thinking about the economy as an emergent, self-organising system in the context of the classical tradition – although he emphasises the dynamics and the presence of continual disequilibrium, unlike Sowell, who sees the system as tending towards equilibrium.

As Sowell says, many practising economists have no clue about classical economics. One of the distinguishing – and regrettable –  features of economics is its lack of interest in how the prevailing ideas came about. Thinking back to yesterday’s post on introductory economics books, students should all read a book like Heilbronner’s famous [amazon_link id=”068486214X” target=”_blank” ]The Worldly Philosophers[/amazon_link], or – a bit less accessible – Sandmo’s [amazon_link id=”0691148422″ target=”_blank” ]Economics Evolving: A History of Economic Thought[/amazon_link]. (There was also a recent episode of In Our Time about the physiocrats, which was very good.)

[amazon_image id=”068486214X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers[/amazon_image]

I was very struck by Daniel Stedman-Jones’s history of the rise of neo-liberal economics, [amazon_link id=”0691151571″ target=”_blank” ]Masters of the Universe[/amazon_link], which explained both the consciousness of themselves as developing a new world view, and the long practical campaign to get politicians to adopt their ideas. The current consensus in economics is the end-product of the history of thought in the subject  – and you need to know what you think to start with before you can change.