Here’s a great incentive to do so: the Financial Times & McKinsey, who run the Business Book of the Year competition, are offering a £15,000 prize for an essay that will serve as a proposal for a book about the challenges and opportunities of economic growth.
Here’s the challenge: “The proposed book should aim to provide a compelling and enjoyable insight into future trends in business, economics, finance or management. The judges will favour authors who write with knowledge, creativity, originality and style and whose proposed books promise to break new ground, or examine pressing business challenges in original ways.”
The prize is called the Bracken Bower Prize – after Brendan Bracken, the famous FT chairman in the 1940s and 50s, creating the marvellous newspaper as we know it today, having been Minister of Information during the second world war; and Marvin Bower, who was McKinsey’s MD in the 50s and 60s.
Wikipedia says of Bracken: “He was particularly vociferous in his support for the independence of the BBC.” That independence is of course vital. But his employee at the Ministry of Information, George Orwell (Eric Blair), saw Bracken as the propogandist – and this is in the BBC Archive.
The BBC Archive note says: “Brendan Bracken, a flamboyant and controversial character, was Churchill’s Parliamentary Private Secretary and closest confidant before becoming Minister of Information in 1941. He is credited with transforming the ministry, which previously had fallen foul of both journalists hungry for news and defence staff wary of giving away too much information. Bracken was convinced that the public could handle the truth and he soothed relations with the BBC by using a dual approach, insisting on close scrutiny of overseas broadcasting while allowing the BBC much freer rein for domestic programmes.”
That’s by the by, though. The important thing is to get to work on your book if you fit the entry criteria.
The essay should be no more than 5,000 words. You have to be under 35 on 11 November 2014. Full details are here. The closing date for entries is 5pm (BST) on September 30th 2014. The winning essay will be published on FT.com but they can’t guarantee a book deal. Still, £15,000 is more than almost all non-fiction book advances.
The Boxer and the Goalkeeper: Sartre vs Camus by Andy Martin was recommended to me by somebody commenting on this blog, I remember not when. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable book, using the soap opera of French intellectual life in the mid-20th century to illustrate the philosophical debates.
I particularly liked the personal touch here. Andy Martin writes about his own intellectual discovery, starting out as an alienated small town teenager who happens upon a copy of Sartre’s L’Etre et le Néant (in fact, he shoplifts it), and from there progresses to university, the Ecole Normale Supérieure, and academic life. I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s in a small town (Ramsbottom) in Lancashire where many people, including my dad and aunts and uncles, then worked in the cotton mills. Occasionally we visited Manchester – once, I went to London. Our holidays were spent in Blackpool or Filey. From an early age, though, I dreamed of leaving and leading an entirely more glamorous life. Many small town young people do of course, but for in my mind glamour involved philosophy and abroad.
I particularly fixed on philosophy after our French teacher (Mme Sandler, I salute you) started us on Sartre’s Les Mains Sales and told us to read up on existentialism. My entire being came to be focused on becoming a philosopher and spending my career writing books while sitting in a Parisian café. Then I read Simone De Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, which was an enlightenment.
Initially, Sartre and Beauvoir seemed more enticing, but before long it was obvious that Camus was more appealing as a person and as a philosopher. The Boxer and the Goalkeeper reinforces that. In particular, Sartre’s political calls post-war look highly morally dubious and I for one am all with Camus as their friendship turned to antagonism. But make your own mind up – read the book. There are some taster extracts here.
A few days ago I asked, what economic history do economists need to know? Since then, I’ve thought of a few extra myself – although the list below barely still scratches the surface! Keep the ideas coming.
Power and Plenty, Ronald Findlay and Kevin O’Rourke
The Institutional Revolution, Douglas Allen
Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk, Peter Bernstein
The Prize: the epic quest for power, oil and money, Daniel Yergin
Accidental Empires, Robert Cringely
Below, I’ve collated some of the additional suggestions other people have made.
Tom Clark, author of Hard Times: The Divisive Toll of the Economic Slump, emailed: “Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance. Arguably a bit old now, but still teaches you how to make sense of what’s going on in financial markets today in the light of decades of experience. Barry Eichengreen’s Globalising Capital, which does the whole history of the global monetary system v elegantly in a couple of hundred pages. The classic Marienthal study of the effect of unemployment (which I read in full for Hard Times, and is a powerful as well as a nice quick read).” He also suggested Galbraith’s The Great Crash 1929.
Robotenomics: “I’d recommend considering Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction by Thomas McCraw, and Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital by Carlota Perez.”
Christopher May: Karl Polanyi’s classic The Great Transformation
Steven Clarke: “I’m currently reading David Landes The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present and would thoroughly recommend it.”
Ronald Grey: Manias, Panics, and. Crashes. A History of Financial Crises by Charles Kindleberger
Duncan Green: Anything and everything by Ha-Joon Chang (from Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective onwards) and Dani Rodrik (One Economics, Many Recipes).
Merjin Knibbe: Money, the unauthorized biography
Martin Chick tweeted:
@diane1859 My first year’s in British EH begin with Keynes, Essays In Persuasion; Meade Intelligent Radical’s Guide to Economy;
Teju Cole’s Every Day Is For The Thief is an absolutely terrific book – his Open City is now on my wish list. It is a portrait of Nigeria – Lagos, rather – by a returned Nigerian. One of his main preoccupations is the absolutely pervasive bribery, which he tries to resist but rarely successfully; another the texture of institutional failure and what that means for the country – and how it is linked to the absence of a sense of why history is important. Highly relevant reading for anybody interested in development economics, not to mention a wonderfully written, moving, fascinating book.
Cole writes: “For many Nigerians, the giving and receiving of bribes, tips, extortion money or alms – the categories are fluid – is not thought of in moral terms. It is either seen as a mild irritant, or as an opportunity. It is a way of getting things done, neither more nor less than what money is there for.” This is subtly different from Katherine Boo’s explanation for corruption in her book in life in an Indian slum, Behind the Beautiful Forevers, where she shows that people are too poor to give up any opportunity to make some money.
Other snippets from Every Day is for the Thief: “One goes to the market to participate in the world. As with all things that concern the world, being in the market requires caution. The market – as the essence of the city – is always alive with possibility and danger. Strangers encounter each other in the world’s infinite variety, vigilance is needed. Everyone is there not merely to buy or sell but because it is a duty.”
“The oil and gas business rakes in lurid profits, there has been a great increase in cellphone use, and the banking sector is frenetic. The newspapers are full of mergers and acquisitions. These are the limits of the boom. It is good news in the sense that increased commerce is creating jobs, that the economy is active, and certain practical needs of the people are being met. Things are not as stagnant as they were in the dark days of the early and mid-90s. But there are now mores erious discrepancies in income levels, even among people with comparable educational qualifications. There is little incentive for people to go into professions that are not lucrative. Consumption, among those who can afford it, is conspicuous.”
And you ask, as I suppose you are meant to, who are the thieves.