Tag Archives: review

It’s the power, stupid

Posted on by

What’s not to like about a book with the title [amazon_link id=”1612193749″ target=”_blank” ]The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureacracy[/amazon_link]. This is a book of essays by Occup Wall Street activist and LSE anthropologist David Graeber, author of the tome [amazon_link id=”1612194192″ target=”_blank” ]Debt: The First 5000 Years[/amazon_link]. Well, various things. Just like his previous book, I enjoyed the read, strongly disagreed with some points and strongly agreed with others. That makes for quite good entertainment.

[amazon_image id=”B00MKZ0QZ2″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy[/amazon_image]

The book is a series of essays, ostensibly about bureaucracy, but really about the iniquities of neoliberal capitalism, which is not at all an arena of individual liberty but on the contrary a highly circumscribed system of exploitation. ‘Bureaucracy’ does service as a catch-all term for the set of rules through which the oligarchy in cahoots with the government restrict the options of the great mass of people.

There is certainly something in this portrayal of a society of rich people and large organisations able to act as they please while the great majority experience a highly regulated life. Think about wanting to open a small cafe or a two-person plumbing business, and the extent of certification and inspections that are needed. Or opening a bank account. Graeber writes that we spend hours entangled in paperwork to apply for licences or pay taxes or open accounts, and: “The paperwork we do exists in this sort of in between zone – ostensibly private, but in fact entirely shaped by a government that provides the legal framework, underpins the rules with its courts and all the elaborate mechanisms of enforcement that come with them but – crucially – works closely with the private concerns to ensure the results will guarantee a certain rate of provate profit.” All the more so in these days of outsourcing of state functions such as determining eligibility for benefits. There has been, he says, a gradual fusion of public and private power into “a single entity, rife with rules and regulations.”

So I think there is something in this. Matt Taibbi was onto the same point in [amazon_link id=”0385529961″ target=”_blank” ]Griftopia[/amazon_link] when he argued that all the people who seem crazy to support Tea Party policies actually do have an arbitrary and unfriendly government controlling their lives.

Where I strongly disagree with Graeber is in his analysis of how to respond. The good part of his argument is about experimenting with other kinds of association and collective organisation, not government but not for profit, perhaps idealistic but worth trying. However, he also writes: “Do not underestimate the importance of sheer physical violence,” drawing on the experience of protests like the 1999 Battle for Seattle riots against the WTO.

He also has a long excursion into technology, arguing that the pace of change peaked in the 1950s or 60s, and that current technological change is not delivering things people might actually want such as flying jet packs. The high hopes of the 1960s as manifested in Star Trek, say, have not materialized. No beaming up, no holodecks etc. Instead, technology has been diverted to military causes. Apart from the fact that the military have always influenced technological research, this is a fact-free essay. I’d want to see some kind of evidence, because if you look at things like either price declines (or how many hours of work are needed to purchase a unit of computer power, or light), or the character of post-1960s discoveries  (medical advances, compelling technologies such as mobile telephony) then there seems to me to be decent evidence for no slowdown. Why can’t computers think yet? Well, give them time. Economic historians like Paul David and David Landes have pointed out how long and variable and unpredictable are the lags between discoveries and their economic and social impact. The dreams and fears about electricity probably peaked more than 60 years before its use had become widespread.

Still, disagreements don’t really matter with a book like this. It’s enjoyable to read something thought provoking with lots of interesting material. I enjoyed the Star Trek riff (“The Federation is Leninism brought to its future absolute cosmic success… a happy conjuncture of material abundance and ideological conformity”) and the potted history of the German Postal system of the 19th century and its influence on future ideal societies, and his review of the third Batman movie and its political interpretation. This book is also less than half the length of [amazon_link id=”1612194192″ target=”_blank” ]Debt[/amazon_link], Bureaucracy having a shorter history I suppose. Although actually the one thing this isn’t really about is bureaucracy, but instead another Graeber take on power.

What should rule the world after GDP?

Posted on by

[amazon_link id=”0691166528″ target=”_blank” ]The Little Big Number: how GDP came to rule the world and what to do about it[/amazon_link] by Dirk Philipsen is out next month. As a GDP-afficionado, I was eager to read it and found it an enjoyable read and generally thought-provoking, although not agreeing with the author on all points.

[amazon_image id=”0691166528″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Little Big Number: How GDP Came to Rule the World and What to Do about It[/amazon_image]

My main disagreement was more about tone and exaggeration in what is a rather emotional book. There are for example assertions like: “It is safe to say our ancestors, for some 200,000 years prior to the agricultural revolution, engaged in labour only to the very extent to which it helped them survive.” Really? No cave paintings, ancient jewellry, religion? Was Stonehenge essential for survival? Or, because of our “fixation with the accumulation of things”, trying to capture the reality of late 18th century life “by saying that people were poor would represent a fundamental misread.” So were they not less well-nourished than us with more illnesses and shorter lives and many children dying in infancy? Did women (and even men) not spend hours in domestic drudgery? I don’t hesitate to call people in the 18th century poor on this basis; it’s nothing to do with a passion for accumulating cars or handbags. I don’t want more than one washing machine but wouldn’t be without the one – just like Hans Rosling’s mother.

Many readers will like the polemical tone of [amazon_link id=”B00V943S3W” target=”_blank” ]The Little Big Number[/amazon_link]; it’s obvious I didn’t. Apart from that, this is an interesting book looking at the history of GDP, its inadequacies as a measure of social welfare, and the environmental consequences of seeking continuing economic growth. It covers some of the same ground as my own [amazon_link id=”0691156794″ target=”_blank” ]GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History[/amazon_link], with additional detail. The book identifies the turn to growth rather than levels of national income as a policy aim in the 1950s. Philipsen attributes this to American optimism as the victor in World War 2. I wonder if it isn’t more related to the dawning Cold War, and the need to demonstrate over and over again that the American system was superior to the Soviet one? Geoff Tily (pdf) pinpoints an OECD document of 1961 as the first official reference to targetting growth, so quite a while after the end of the Second World War. (And as ever for anyone who hasn’t read it, I highly recommend Francis Spufford’s [amazon_link id=”0571225241″ target=”_blank” ]Red Plenty.[/amazon_link])

The Soviet bloc used Net Material Product as their definition of ‘the economy’. The statistics were highly suspect, even those calculated as a best effort by the CIA; it wasn’t really until the mid-1980s, with glasnost, that the true, sustained weakness of growth in the planned economies became evident. There is a nice anecdote in the book: “Once Soviet archives opened to historical research in the years after 1991, we learned that American GDP figures of the Soviet national economy had been far more accurate than estimates provided by the Soviet Union’s own economic planners, who found it near-impossible to come up with reliable data for their centralized planned economy. What did Soviet planners do? They spied on American economists calculating Soviet GDP, and then incorporated what they learned from their American colleagues into their own planning.” Of course, the Americans were spying on the Soviets to get the basic data. Who knows what the figures meant? But the queues and shortages and poor quality of goods were all real.

The second half of the book looks at the ‘Beyond GDP’ debate, although oddly asserting that nobody paid much attention to the issues between Robert Kennedy’s assassination and Congressional hearings in 2001. This is a little US-centric; the global environmental movement kept the candle burning for alternatives all through that period. Philipsen concurs with the kinds of indicator like the Global Progress Index that show progress coming to a complete halt in the 1970s. This always seems absurd to me: even if that was a real turning point in terms of costs to the environment, which gets a heavy weight in the alternative index, there has been a lot of welfare-enhancing innovation and straightforward growth since the 1970s. It’s not just the invention of tamoxifen or the internet, but the fact that more westerners live in houses with phones, indoor toilets and central heating. Sure, there’s a trade-off with the environment but is that really no progress? Nor is Philipsen interested in the issues about defining either market output or social welfare for the growing category of digital goods that are often free and have strong public good characteristics.

As for what to do about it, the book advocates ditching GDP completely, and having a national dialogue about economic goals based on the principles of sustainability, equity, democratic accountability and economic viability. It isn’t clear how this prescription fits with the several ‘dashboard’ initiatives under way now, which are described here. The dashboard approach is attractive, as is public consultation. However, it isn’t yet clear which dashboard is best or what should go in it – it’s easy to end up with a laundry list of good things, and no analytical framework for assessing outcomes or trade-offs. So the real need now is for the hard grind of the kind that Kuznets, Stone and Meade and their many colleagues sustained through the 1930s and 40s in creating the national accounts to make a GDP-plus set of social accounts practical.

I still think dropping GDP altogether would be a mistake – hence ‘affectionate’. How would a government run fiscal policy or a central bank monetary policy without a nominal GDP figure and some of the national accounts detail? The national accounts statistics as a whole also contain a lot of the material that could furnish a meaningful dashboard, so again it would be a waste of an intellectual asset to ditch all of that.

However, the answer to the underlying question, are we going to move ‘beyond GDP’ is: yes.

Globalized Inequality

Posted on by

Francois Bourguignon’s [amazon_link id=”069116052X” target=”_blank” ]The Globalization of Inequality[/amazon_link] is an interesting companion to Tony Atkinson’s [amazon_link id=”0674504763″ target=”_blank” ]Inequality[/amazon_link], which I reviewed here recently. It’s a different kind of book, a relatively short argument about why and how to make the globalization process fairer, as contrasted with Atkinson’s longer and detailed description and analysis of inequality in the UK with a substantial list of policy recommendations. It’s useful to have the global picture alongside the national one, however, because the story globally is of much increased incomes in the middle of the distribution in a few countries – largely China – as well as gains among the richest groups.

In the first chapter and its data annexe Bourguignon sets out the figures in careful detail, distinguishing between increases in inequality within countries and changes between countries. “Inequality in the standard of living between countries has started to decline … On the other hand, inequality within many countries has increased.” The book’s central question is then whether these two phenomena are related, linked by the process of globalization, of trade and investment flows between high and low (average) income countries. This is addressed in the second and third chapters of the book. He answers broadly yes, through the far greater intensity of competitive forces operating on industries in the rich economies that couldn’t cope – although he also attributes a significant part of the explanation to the politics of deregulation and tax cuts, and the expanding role of finance.

The final part of the book turns to whether anything ought to be done about inequality in this global context, and if so what can be done. Bourguignon argues that it is worth trying to get the best of both worlds and combine the trend towards less inequality between countries while tackling greater inequality within countries. He rejects the idea of a sharp trade-off between equity and economic efficiency on the grounds that inequality of the degree seen now in the US and UK is politically and institutionally destabilising. Indeed, he says, many aspects of inequality inhibit the efficient operation of markets.

The final chapter turns to policies, and it is the least satisfactory. This is in large part because in a short book like this, there is little room for the persuasive detail. However, I don’t think the policies he favours – more development aid for the poorer economies, taxes and transfers within the rich economies – would be particularly effective. I’m far more in sympathy with Atkinson’s emphasis on market incomes, and the need to address the structures of markets that are the root causes of the increase in inequality.

Having grumbled about that, it is certainly important to keep the biggest of big pictures in mind when thinking about inequality, even at the national level. The fact that the economy is globalized is an important factor in any assessment of the causes of inequality and therefore what it might be practical to do about it.

[amazon_image id=”B00RKMZZME” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Globalization of Inequality[/amazon_image]

Inequality – What is to be done?

Posted on by

I finished [amazon_link id=”0674504763″ target=”_blank” ]Inequality: What Can Be Done?[/amazon_link] by Tony Atkinson, and think it’s great. If you’re only going to read one book on the subject, this is more useful than [amazon_link id=”067443000X” target=”_blank” ]Piketty[/amazon_link] – although I have Francois Bourguignon’s forthcoming (May) [amazon_link id=”069116052X” target=”_blank” ]The Globalization of Inequality[/amazon_link] in my in-pile and have high hopes for that one too, as a companion work.

[amazon_image id=”0674504763″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Inequality[/amazon_image]  [amazon_image id=”069116052X” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Globalization of Inequality[/amazon_image]

As noted in my previous posts, Atkinson’s [amazon_link id=”0674504763″ target=”_blank” ]Inequality[/amazon_link] starts out very carefully and clearly with the data, highlighting the fundamental point that although there are some common underlying trends tending to drive greater inequality in market incomes, different countries have had different outcomes in terms of post-tax, post-transfer incomes (and in access to public goods and services too, but this is too hard to measure). Even when it comes to the skill bias of technological change, on which many economists (me included) have placed a lot of emphasis as an explanatory factor, Atkinson argues that this is not a given of the universe. The direction of investment spending and substitution is shaped by the menu of opportunities firms face, and that is not exogenous.

His main focus is how firms make these choices and exercise their market power. What constraints do they face? This depends on the state, and on corporate governance, and on finance. All of these offer paths to influencing income distribution.

The second part of the book offers s series (15) of policy interventions to reverse the increased income inequality – there is a UK focus in the recommendations. I don’t agree with all of them, or at least not without further thought. For instance, he recommends implementing competition policy with explicit distributional considerations. However, I love the fact that there are 15 suggestions – enough of books that pretend there are simple solutions! When it comes to inequality, there’s a generation’s worth of institutional and political change behind the current situation so narrowing the income distribution will take work.

One of Atkinson’s key proposals is a vehicle for assessing and co-ordinating what will be needed is a new Social and Economic Council, with members drawn from the old tripartite of unions, business and government but adding also non-governmental organisations and consumer groups. He includes also property taxation – a proportional tax on regularly uprated property values. Every economist I know in the UK (many) recommends reforming property taxation – I was much struck by John Muellbauer’s FT column today calling for an updated and progressive council tax, with an equity transfer instead of cash payment option. Kate Barker’s excellent [amazon_link id=”1907994114″ target=”_blank” ]Housing: Where’s the plan?[/amazon_link] included a look at capital gains tax on the main dwelling.

[amazon_image id=”1907994114″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Housing: Where’s the Plan? (Perspectives)[/amazon_image]

There are many other suggestions in the book – capital endowments for all young people; a job guarantee for those out of work for more then 12 months; and more. The length of the list could be depressing (you mean we can’t just tax plutocrats?) but I found it ended up cheering me because there are so many good policy ideas here that perhaps a government could make a start with just a few and take it from there.

Anyway, UK folks, read this book and then for comparison read your favourite party manifesto. Now, onto [amazon_link id=”069116052X” target=”_blank” ]the global picture[/amazon_link].

After neoliberalism?

Posted on by

My journey back yesterday from the Royal Economic Society annual conference in Manchester was delayed for ages because some poor soul had thrown themselves under a train along the line. At least I managed to finish [amazon_link id=”0674725654″ target=”_blank” ]The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism[/amazon_link] by David Kotz.

[amazon_image id=”B00SR5FNSY” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism[/amazon_image]

I’m a bit allergic to the word ‘neoliberal’, probably because it’s so often used as generic and blanket abuse of (among other things) all of economics. I’ve been accused of neoliberalism myself (to which the only sensible response is that the accuser needs to get out more if they think I’m an ideologue…..)

Certainly Kotz signals his own ideological views by using the term as his descriptor of American capitalism, but he does have a far more precise and meaningful definition than is the norm. He defines it as a specific “social structure of accumulation”, a “particular configuration of economic and political institutions, as well as dominant economic theories and ideas.” This is interesting, and I buy the general approach – it’s similar to (for example) Michael Best’s use of the concept of “production systems” in [amazon_link id=”0198297459″ target=”_blank” ]The New Competitive Advantage[/amazon_link], but ranging wider beyond the economic institutions of production.

Kotz sees the 1950s and 60s as a golden age of ‘regulated capitalism’ with strong unions and well-paid jobs for (male) breadwinners. He accepts that it had its own crisis, with sustained declines in profitability through the 1970s. Hence the scope for the arrival of ‘neoliberal capitalism’ from 1979/81 with Thatcher and Reagan.

Much of the book describes the development of the ‘neoliberal’ system after that turning point in terms of the broad outlines of the US economy – profit rates and shares, declining union membership, stagnant median real wages, the rise in household indebtedness etc. It does not cover globalisation to any great extent, which seems an important omission, nor does it mention technology or environmental sustainability at all, so the prism is quite narrow. Deindustrialisation is described more in terms of an attack on organised labour than the consequence of several deeper economic trends. However, the book’s analysis of the 2008 crisis in terms of the preceding financial bubble, and the way consumption was supported by debt, is surely not controversial.

Kotz does mention the role of ideas in economic theory and – more important in the long term – political received wisdom (the theory has moved on, but the policy world view far less so). He describes neoliberal ideology as “very strong” – clear, simple, apparently logical. Daniel Stedman-Jones’s [amazon_link id=”B00RWOZWD2″ target=”_blank” ]Masters of the Universe[/amazon_link] gives a much fuller account of the effort it took to cement the ideology over a number of decades prior to 1979, and highlights how much organisation it will take to change the prevailing world view. For I think this is a question of political and social organisation more than one of economic or political theorising.

Kotz argues here that the US and by extension the western economic system is in a state of crisis that will give way to a new “social structure of accumulation” whose shape is yet to be determined – it could be a revived neoliberal system. It will not be his preferred socialist system without a broad social movement, as at moments of crisis in the past such as 1945.

I would agree with Kotz that the prevailing production system or social structure is in crisis, but would emphasise more the fundamental role of technology and globalization. Not that a class-based perspective isn’t important. He concludes: “The path that will be followed in the years ahead cannot be predicted …. The economic changes – or lack of changes – that lie ahead will be the outcome of struggles among various groups and classes in the coming years, which will occur in the realm of ideas, politics and culture.” And surely the realm of the work place, public space and policy corridors too?

So all in all, I agreed with quite a lot of the analysis here while thinking it an incomplete picture. Still, the book irked me, no doubt because of my allergy to ‘neoliberalism’, along with its slightly plodding style. Reading it did feel a bit like being in a political meeting where you are washed over by a wave of abstract nouns. I know economists are on average pretty clunky writers so one should be used to it, but I did nod off over the book as my train trundled veeeery slowly through the countryside.

I wonder what Professor Kotz would have thought of the arrangement at dinner at the Royal Economic Society conference. There were two options for each course, and staff served each one to alternating places at the table. If you preferred the other, you had to exchange. Perfectly efficient and logical – surely only an economist could have thought of it? I’m tempted to do this every time I invite people round for a meal in future, unless that would be a bit neoliberal.

Instructions at the bottom - side payments not ruled out.

Instructions at the bottom – side payments not ruled out.