Tag Archives: political economy

The power of ideas

Posted on by
1

Some years ago I read Masters of the Universe by Daniel Stedman-Jones, a history of the Mont Pelerin Society with a focus on how it came to have such a profound influence on policy, first in the UK and US through Thatcher and Reagan, and subsequently on the whole western world. It made a big impression on me, opening my eyes to the Milton Friedman assertion about how important it was to make sure the ‘right’ ideas were around, in the air, when a moment of crisis created political opportunities. The Mont Pelerin economists had kept the free-market faith from 1945 onwards, working at building their institutional network (mainly via Chicago) and seeding their ideas.

I’ve now read The Great Persuasion by Angus Burgin, which covers the same history from a slightly different perspective. Its emphasis is less on the practical politics, more on the evolution of the ideas of the Society’s members (including its internal rifts). One of the same points about Hayek and his colleagues jumps out, though: “In adopting this strategy [avoiding policy engagement], they demonstrated an extraordinary faith in the capacity of abstract ideas to generate substantive political change,” Burgin writes.

Indeed Milton Friedman, a great communicator, was one of the first leading lights to embrace public engagement much more actively – his most influential article was probably a New York Times essay, on maximising shareholder value, still distorting our economies. The book also underlines how much the core ideas of the Society shifted over time, from an initial postwar insistence on the importance of government and rebuttal of ‘Manchester’ laissez faire, with the shift from Europe to Chicago and the growing influence of right wing American donors – and of the dominance of economists as opposed to philosophers.

The two books are good complements, along with Quinn Slobodian’s books on neoliberalism. I haven’t yet read his latest, Hayek’s Bastards, but the earlier Globalists is well worth a read.

61rX9erUd6L._AC_UY436_QL65_

 

Leviathan, supersized

Posted on by

My dear husband gave me a Daunts book subscription for my birthday so I get a lucky dip new paperback each month. A recent one was my colleague David Runciman’s The Handover: How We Gave Control of Our Lives to Corporations, States and AIs, first published in 2023. As David writes too many books for me to keep up with, I hadn’t already read it. The core argument is that human societies have already ceded many decision-making powers to non-human entities, namely states and corporations.

I read most of the book thinking, ‘Yes, but….’, as it’s a neat argument but not watertight. It starts with Hobbes, and the idea of non-human persons as it developed in different institutional forms. A key difference with decisions made by machine agents seems to lie in their autonomy or lack of openness to change or redress; and changing that requires them to be part of states and corporations rather than separate entities.

The book does, though, sort of acknowledge this towards the end: “If the machine decides what happens next, no matter how intelligent the process by which that choice was arrived at, the possibility of catastrophe is real, because some decisions need direct human input. It is only human beings whose intelligence is attuned to the risk of having asked the wrong question.” He goes on to link this back to the claim that the state is a ‘political machine’ or ‘artificial decision-making machine’ so there is no difference really between states and AIs – but this, again, makes the use of AIs in political domains part of the state machine.

He concludes: “For now the bigger choices is whether the artificial agency of the state is joined with human intelligence or artificial intelligence.” Will AI crowd out the humanity? Looking at the US now, this seems like a question from another era, a gentler era, though. The new regime there has merged state, corporation and AI in a behemoth that dwarves Hobbes’ Leviathan.

717KaBX5liL._AC_UY436_QL65_

 

Swings and roundabouts – or slides?

Posted on by

When you’ve seen as many ups and downs in the ranking of countries’ economic models as I have, it’s no surprise to learn that what was considered a sure-fire recipe for success at one time is portrayed as stagnation or sclerosis a decade or two later. The perceptions amplify relatively small differences in GDP growth, as the western economies tend to exhibit the same broad trends. Still, Wolfgang Munchau’s Kaput: The end of the German miracle was surprising. (although so were my recent experiences with German trains mobile coverage).

The book – which is very well written – argues that German policymakers made some strategic bets some decades ago that have backfired significantly over time: dependence on Russian energy, underinvestment, over-reliance on parts of the manufacturing sector as China has gained ground – in electric vehicle production for example – and a failure to keep up with digital technology. It emphasises the reliance on technologies that the digital and green transitions are simply rendering redundant – the internal combustion engine prominent among them. The effectively mercantilist system of political prioritisation and finance has continued to support the country’s traditional strengths rather than anything innovative that might cannibalise those famous manufacturing companies. In fact, the list of charges is long – out-of-date skills, a labour market that cannot well accommodate expanding sources of labour supply (women, over-60s, immigrants) because of the vocational and apprenticeship structures, a weak digital infrastructure, and of course a disastrous energy policy over many years.

Is this really the end of the German miracle, or another of those episodes when what looks like a fatal weakness one decade will turn out to be just what is needed the next? As the author says in the prologue, “A British journalist and friend of mine warned me not to write this book. He said that the over-arching lesson in his professional life has never been to bet against the German economy.” The 5G is terrible and the trains are worse than ours in the UK, but German towns are still visibly more prosperous than many of their British counterparts. On the other hand, people still generally use cash – the ATM at the airport in Hamburg a while ago gave me a €100 note, which is just unimaginable in other European countries. And people aren’t using the apps so familiar to us to navigate or find a restaurant because they just won’t load over the terrible mobile networks.

So I don’t know whether the German miracle is permanently broken or not but this is an eye-opening read. And of course there’s the message Germany’s voters are about to send the country’s political establishment next month – whatever it turns out to be.

61rtZ4LvY4L._AC_UY436_QL65_

Robots among us

Posted on by

I ended up with mixed reactions to Waiting for Robots: The Hired Hands of Automation by Antonio Caselli.

The powerful point it makes is the complete dependence of AI and digital technologies generally on ongoing human input. Many years ago, my husband – then a technology reporter for the BBC – was digging out the facts about a hyped dot com company called Spinvox. Its business was said not be automated voice transcription, but it turned out the work was mainly done by humans, not computers (although the story turned scratchy –  the linked post responds to the company’s points). Waiting for Robots gives many examples of apps that similarly involve cheap human labour rather than digital magic – I was surprised by this. Less surprising – and indeed covered in other books such as Madhumiat Murgia’s recent Code Dependent – is the use of humans in content moderation (remember when big social media companies used to do that?), data labelling and other services from Mechanical Turk to reinforcement learning with human feedback for LLMs.

The book also claims much more as ‘labour’ and this is where I disagree. Of course big tech benefits from my digital exhaust and from content I post online such as cute dog photos. But this seems to me categorically different from often (badly) paid employment relationships. Although the stickiness of network effects or habit might keep me on a certain service, although the companies might set the defaults so they hoover up my activity data, the power dynamics are different. I can switch, for instance from X to BlueSky, or from Amazon to my local bookstore. So I’m not a fan of portraying these types of data-provision as more ‘digital labour’.

Having said that, the book makes a compelling case that robots and humans are interdependent and will remain so. Generative AI will continue to need human-produced material (‘data’) and intervention to avert model collapse. Humans are also going to have to pay for digital services so will need to have money to pay with. Focusing on the economic dynamics involved is crucial, as it is clear that the market/platform/ecosystem structures are currently tilted towards the (owners of) robots and away from humans. So, for all that I’m not persuaded by the classification of different types of ‘digital labour’ here (and find the anti-capitalist perspective on tackling the challenges unpragmatic apart from anything else), there is a lot of food for thought in Waiting for Robots.

61o8lw6oQAL._AC_UY218_

The tech coup

Posted on by

It’s some months since I read Marietje Schaake’s The Tech Coup, as she delivered the ST Lee Poicy Lecture here in Cambridge last November 11th, right after the US presidential election. Just a short time later, her warning looks even more prescient than it did on the day, as the American tech executives bend the knee at the court of Mar A Lago.

Most of the book is a descriptive analysis of how the US tech companies have come to occupy such a central role in daily life and in the politics of the west, often under the cover of “innovation” and their role in delivering economic growth. The chapters pick up on specific concerns, such as facial recognition being used by police forces as well as authoritarian regimes, misinformation on social media, the cyber insecurity due to corporate practices, and the loss of sovereignty by states other then the US. The thread running through all these is the vanishing concern for the public interest in the development and deployment of digital technology. While the issues are sadly familiar, Schaake brings the unique perspective of someone who was an MEP with responsibilities for the digital sector and now a Stanford University academic, in the heart of Silicon Valley.

The conclusion is titled, “Stop the tech coup, save democracy.” she writes, “The tech coup shifting power from public and democratic institutions to companies must stop.” But continues, “Invisibly or indirectly, a whole host of technologies is privatizing responsibilities that used to be the monopoly of the state.” As I write this post, the headlines today feature Mr Musk getting an office in the White House later this month, the European Commission ‘pausing’ its anti-trust actions against the big US tech firms under the EU DMA to consider the political ramifications, and the UK government, on the advice of a tech investor, going gung-ho on getting AI used through the public sector asap. Interestingly, yesterday I took part in a webinar at ICRIER, the Delhi-based think tank, where there was much emphasis on the direct role of the state in running digital public infrastructure. Public options must surely be a part of, not stopping, but turning back, the coup – or if you prefer a less dramatic turn of phrase, putting public interest back at the centre of innovation in this amazing technology.

61SgA5XC93L._AC_UY436_QL65_