What *is* consumption?

In between visits by my students to office hours today I picked up again Thomas Schelling’s Choice & Consequence and re-read the final essay, ‘The Mind as a Consuming Organ’. Recently I wrote something about this for the FT. It’s such a rich essay – well, I’d be overjoyed to have written any of the essays in the book.

The bit that resonated today was this reflection on consumption:

“Take the rational consumer in economic theory: what is he consuming?

“What do I consume when I purchase The Wizard of Oz? Physically I buy a book or a reel of videotape. But that is a raw material. I ‘consume’ two hours of entertainment. But should I say that, like Dorothy, I consumed a trip to Oz … the adventure, with the risk and poignancy and exceitement and surprise?…

“There is no question but that part of what I get from a two hour movie or two hours with a book is ‘two hours’ worth’ of something…. But do we consume the contents of the story or just the time?”

These were profound questions in the early 1980s, but more so now a high proportion of rich consumers’ expenditure goes on experience goods. The underlying question is what is being maximised when an economic agent maximises their utility – and what are the implications for welfare economics of preference formation over emotions or mental processes. I don’t know the answers, but standard economics will struggle more with ill-defined and relative or fluid preferences than with any number of financial crises.

Imagination and economics

Martin Wolf has always been super-gloomy. In 2016 he really came into his own, as the year delivered him so much to be gloomy about. His latest column in the Financial Times is a great example, ending with a prediction that authoritarian nationalism is centre stage and will change everything about the world order.

The column alludes to Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, so I went back to the book today. I’d underlined this definition of ‘official nationalism’: “An anticipatory strategy adopted by dominant groups which are threatened with exclusion from an emerging nationally-imagined community.” Not so much the left-behinds as the ‘once-aheads, really don’t like their loss of status in a changed nation’.

As Wolf puts it: “[T]he politics of nationalist resentment are not just an upsurge from below. They are a tactic of power-seekers.” He argues that economics is bound to find itself in opposition to official nationalism: “Perhaps the greatest contribution of economics is the idea that societies will gain more from seeking to trade with one another than trying to conquer one another. … The wise relationship between states, therefore, is one of co-operation, not war, and trade, not isolation. This brilliant idea happens to be correct. But it is also counter-intuitive, even disturbing. It means that one might gain more from foreigners than fellow citizens.”

So brace yourselves, fellow economists. The Govian war on experts will continue.


War and inequality

I’ve been distracted for a few days, first by the ASSA conference in Chicago – of which more in the next post – and then by my eldest son’s wedding. But I’m now eager to read a book that has just arrived at Enlightenment Towers, Walter Scheidel’s The Great Leveler: violence and the history of inequality from the Stone Age to the twenty-first century. “Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality?” the inside cover blurb starts. The following 450 pages answer: yes. I’m not expecting it to be a cheerful read.


By coincidence, there’s a recent VoxEU column supporting the Great Leveler hypothesis. Looking at Europe’s rich since 1300, Guido Alfani concludes that only the Black Death and world wars have significantly reversed increasing inequality. All this new work follows Thomas Piketty’s raising the question in his tome Capital in the 21st Century. Talk about an unpalatable trade-off.

Joy of data visualizations

Recently Dave Giles linked to an old blog post on his wonderful Econometrics Beat about plotting the data before running regressions. This is a habit drummed into me at an early age but youngsters don’t seem to always do this.

Dave mentions the well-known Edward Tufte books, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and Envisioning Information. (I think I have the entire Tufte oeuvre.)

41gisakryl 81vezjen4l








I like Howard Wainer’s books also: Graphic Discovery and Picturing the Uncertain World. I don’t have his latest, Truth or Truthiness: How to Think Like A Data Scientist, and might need to remedy that.

51j61mfzejl 51mwgf8vazl

What to do about the econocracy?

What’s not to like when students of economics are passionate about their subject and engaged in how it should develop? I don’t agree with the authors of The Econocracy and their wider network (Rethinking Economics) about absolutely everything, but heartily applaud their engagement. In fact, I do agree with quite a lot of what they say about the subject and particularly the way it’s taught, which is why I organised a conference on this subject at the Bank of England in early 2012 (here’s the book of the conference papers), and have since been committed to working on the CORE project and its free online textbook The Economy. What’s more, one of the authors of The Econocracy, Cahal Moran, is the TA for my public policy economics course at Manchester. So this is the context for my view of their book.

It starts with a quotation from Albert Camus: “Each generation doubtless feels called upon to reform the world. Mine knows that it will not reform it, but its task is perhaps even greater. It consists in preventing the world from destroying itself.” How much more apposite that seems now than it must have when the book was written.

Many, probably most, economists knew even before the disdain for ‘experts’ set in this year that there was still a legacy of the financial crisis in terms of thinking about the character of our subject and also how it’s taught. This only seems more urgent now, even if you firmly believe – as I do – that there are some nonsense criticisms, and that economic research is in a better state than you would know from either external criticism or the undergraduate curriculum. Some economists need to be more self-critical for sure, and more open to other perspectives. The incentives for the kind of research that is done and published urgently need to change – a problem at least as much to do with the structures of universities and the REF as internal dynamics. Economists need to communicate far, far more, and better, with the public. And, yes, how we teach needs to reflect far better the innovations in recent research (such as behavioural economics, or cross-disciplinary institutional work), as well as reintroducing economic history, methodological questions, and the real world.

The Econocracy isn’t a million miles away from this view. It rightly highlights the influence of economics courses on public policy. Many of today’s influential policy makers were taught their economics in the late 1970s or 1980s, the heyday of the most ludicrous free market/rational expectations version of the subject. It was around then that students stopped being taught even basics such as national income accounting and recent economic history. Even worse, the legacy is a generation or two of policymakers who think the world is something like the textbooks. The first chapter highlights a couple of examples, including cost-benefit analysis. This is a bugbear of mine because it’s a tool for marginal, linear changes, applied indiscriminately. However, I don’t believe the solution is to ditch CBA, because it is always going to be applied implicitly if not made explicit. Better surely to try to improve it by aiming to include non-linear effects, take account of externalities, make judgements explicit (as in the public value framework) – simply, to use it with more humility rather than applying it mechanically.

The book acknowledges the work of CORE and the similarities of diagnosis between the two initiatives. I think the authors are wrong to see CORE as a reformed version of the status quo, and to suggest that we don’t think there’s anything wrong with economics in itself, just with the way it’s taught. They state that CORE only includes methodological individualism, which is incorrect, and that the sense of disputes among economists is confined to the history of thought sections, also not correct.

However, there is a key difference between our approach in CORE and the Rethinking solution to the problems of both the subject and the teaching of it. They call for pluralism, the doing and teaching of economics from a range of different perspectives. This sounds perfectly fine, but they contrast it to:” A narrow, fixed body of knowledge is handed down from one generation to the next leaving little room for debate.” These are false opposites. It is possible to combine a wide and evolving body of knowledge with the quest to establish, well, knowledge and not opinions. I am not interested in an economics of competing theories and world views; we do better work as economists when we listen to these, confront them with evidence and careful statistical or logical reasoning, and try to establish a bit of knowledge – context-dependent and historically contingent as it might be.

In the latter addendum to his famous Two Cultures essay, C.P Snow described the social sciences as a third culture, in between the sciences and the humanities. This is an uncomfortable but essential position. I really don’t see economics – as The Econocracy suggests – as just another strand of the liberal arts. (I’m not sure pluralist economists really think that either – isn’t a Marxist economist just as convinced on average as a neoclassical economist that she is right?) Still, I’m certainly prepared to try and be open minded about any specific ‘pluralist’ economics, as long as they’re prepared to specifiy logically-consistent theories and do careful econometrics to test their hypotheses.

Despite this pretty important difference, I very much agree with a lot of the book. Any economist involved in teaching would do well to read it and reflect. It makes interesting observations about the modern university, although without (I think) solving the key dilemma about how to make university education (and assessment) work well for students in an era of mass access to HE. Many university teachers (me & many others!) truly want to deliver the best possible education – lively, interesting, horizon-expanding, promoting critical thinking, delivering important life and work skills – and all this is labour-intensive and (as the book observes) not valued in promotion decisions or professional rewards.

I particularly agree with the conclusion: “We believe that economics must be brought back into the spotlight of democratic scrutiny. Economic decisions must be taken as part of a public discussion.” Always true; truer than ever post-2008 and post-2016.