John Barry: Have just received a review copy of The Economics Anti-Textbook: A Critical Thinker's Guide to Micro-economics by Rod Hill and Tony Myatt http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/book.asp?bookdetail=4326. From a quick review it should be on all undergraduate economics courses in the spirit of pluralism in economic thinking. Some lovely quotes "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists" (Joan Robinson) and "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? The answer to this question can now be given with somewhat greater assurance than twenty years ago...It is 'no'" (Richard Easterlin).
It also includes a series of thought-provoking 'questions for your professor' throughout; such as "Why does the textbook suppose that democracy must end at the workplace door? In whose interest is it that economic democracy remain off the agenda?' and "The competitive labour markey model predicts that if a firm reduces its wage by one cent below the equilibrium its entire workforce will quit. Why don't we test this prediction?"
The book also includes a postscript on the global financial meltdown which as they put it "illustrates the importance of imperfect and assymmetrical information, externalities, limited rationality and inappropriate incentives. In particular, it illustrates the necessity of appropriate government regulation, and the ability of powerful business interests to change the rules of the game" .
Wish I had had this textbook when I was an ungraduate!
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Creating a Truly Democratic Culture
Colm O'Doherty: Michael D. Higgins article in the Irish Times on Saturday sought to engage with the real issue facing Irish people – “what sort of society we wish to create”. He takes issue with the essentialism of the economic model position, and argues that its dominant ideas have infiltrated our thoughts as common sense when they make no sense at all.
If we search behind current political statements and policy debates, we are confronted with a culture of compliance and a misleading active citizenship discourse. Our broken economy has generated a financial crisis which is being played out in the media, but the continuing malfunctioning of our political system is not being discussed to the same degree. What is lacking are clear policy alternatives to the imposition of a market logic onto political processes.
There is no debate and discussion taking place in any forum on what alternative forms of social relations might be substituted for economic ones. A friend of mine, commenting on the political culture of compliance in this society, wondered if Ireland had in any way profited from the Enlightenment, as most people still believed in the divine right of a certain political party to reign. Within our culture of compliance, the government is pre-occupied with altering the behaviour of citizens rather than vice versa. The main development during the life of successive governments has been to instrumentalise citizens, reducing politics to the achievement of goals established not by people themselves, but by a small governing elite – speculators, builders, bankers – who believe they know best. Civil society has been mobilised in support of this political agenda. Successive governments have, under the guise of supporting its independent role, been intent on influencing and controlling it, and using community and voluntary organizations as deliverers of services. Over the past decade, the state has not only become more active in controlling its citizens, but it has also been asking more of them. To do this it has recourse to new governance strategies in which self-regulation of conduct becomes a cornerstone of social order. The best basis for social order is then realised through self-responsible individual citizens, who are competent free market actors, who compete, work, save and consume in pursuit of their own interests.
The services provided by community and voluntary groups are regarded as goods and are consumed by customers. Those who seek to uphold the rights of an entitled citizenship through purposeful collectivism are labelled unpatriotic. It is of the gravest concern that the illusory nature of economic growth, based on credit,house price inflation and commercial service expansion, is not disrupting the longstanding managerial politics based on a culture of compliance. The divide-and-rule policy stratagems of this and previous governments are underwritten by the iron law of the economic model, which is that markets and trade only function through the promotion of a spurious meritocracy. A cult of success which dresses up selfishness as socially desirable esteems those with “entrepreneurial skills”, and the “unproductive” are deemed to be without merit unless they adapt their behaviours to service the economic good and become self-actualizing citizens. What one can do in economic terms, and what one can offer, become more important than relational skills which contribute to the interpersonal economy and increase wellbeing.
Real active citizenship is urgently needed to challenge this culture of compliance supporting the political status quo. An active citizenship not just about learning the rules of the game and how to participate within existing models and structures, but encompassing active learning for political literacy and empowerment.
If we search behind current political statements and policy debates, we are confronted with a culture of compliance and a misleading active citizenship discourse. Our broken economy has generated a financial crisis which is being played out in the media, but the continuing malfunctioning of our political system is not being discussed to the same degree. What is lacking are clear policy alternatives to the imposition of a market logic onto political processes.
There is no debate and discussion taking place in any forum on what alternative forms of social relations might be substituted for economic ones. A friend of mine, commenting on the political culture of compliance in this society, wondered if Ireland had in any way profited from the Enlightenment, as most people still believed in the divine right of a certain political party to reign. Within our culture of compliance, the government is pre-occupied with altering the behaviour of citizens rather than vice versa. The main development during the life of successive governments has been to instrumentalise citizens, reducing politics to the achievement of goals established not by people themselves, but by a small governing elite – speculators, builders, bankers – who believe they know best. Civil society has been mobilised in support of this political agenda. Successive governments have, under the guise of supporting its independent role, been intent on influencing and controlling it, and using community and voluntary organizations as deliverers of services. Over the past decade, the state has not only become more active in controlling its citizens, but it has also been asking more of them. To do this it has recourse to new governance strategies in which self-regulation of conduct becomes a cornerstone of social order. The best basis for social order is then realised through self-responsible individual citizens, who are competent free market actors, who compete, work, save and consume in pursuit of their own interests.
The services provided by community and voluntary groups are regarded as goods and are consumed by customers. Those who seek to uphold the rights of an entitled citizenship through purposeful collectivism are labelled unpatriotic. It is of the gravest concern that the illusory nature of economic growth, based on credit,house price inflation and commercial service expansion, is not disrupting the longstanding managerial politics based on a culture of compliance. The divide-and-rule policy stratagems of this and previous governments are underwritten by the iron law of the economic model, which is that markets and trade only function through the promotion of a spurious meritocracy. A cult of success which dresses up selfishness as socially desirable esteems those with “entrepreneurial skills”, and the “unproductive” are deemed to be without merit unless they adapt their behaviours to service the economic good and become self-actualizing citizens. What one can do in economic terms, and what one can offer, become more important than relational skills which contribute to the interpersonal economy and increase wellbeing.
Real active citizenship is urgently needed to challenge this culture of compliance supporting the political status quo. An active citizenship not just about learning the rules of the game and how to participate within existing models and structures, but encompassing active learning for political literacy and empowerment.
Monday, 23 February 2009
Towards a New Political Economy
Paula Clancy: Welcome to progressive-economy@tasc.
Economics has been described as the 'dismal science'. Economists are often stereotyped as conservative, wallowing in bad news, unfeeling and sometimes allied to powerful financial, economic circles and interests. Academic economics has acquired the reputation of being almost a branch of applied mathematics, with a series of assumptions and models that bear little or no relationship to the real world. Yet, formal theorising and selective empirical analysis has not stopped many economists from offering comprehensive advice and prescriptions to Governments or the commercial organisations that employ them. In the late 19th Century, 'Political Economy' was replaced by 'economics'. From then on, 'economics' began to assume a subordinating role in offering 'values-free' advice based on models of the world that reflected the inherent assumptions and interests of those who practiced and sponsored it. In short, economics has long been seen as the preserve of people with unique access to theory, information and policy wisdom - if only politicians and senior policy makers listened and employed more of them!
However, homo economicus has not saved the world.
TASC believes that it is time to reclaim 'economics' by rediscovering the political, social and cultural in 'economics'. We assert that economics is not, and cannot be, neutral. The very questions we seek to ask, the assumptions we chose to make and the options we decide to recommend are based on a set of values. More to the point, we propose a vision of a different society and polity - one in which people, meaningful relationships and human well-being are ends and not means to serving some other elusive goal. To compete we must also be ready to cooperate. A society that is best placed to be competitive and sustainable on global and domestic markets, we claim, is one that is founded on principles of social justice, equality and democracy where markets work to serve the common good and human rights are respected. A new Political Economy is one that opens up the insights of various disciplines to each other so that 'economics' takes its place in a dialogue involving many different academic disciplines as well as civil society, the world of politics and public discourse.
A new Political Economy must address the fundamental choices, values and alternative possible ways forward that the traditional practice of 'economics' shies away from. For this reason, TASC has created progressive-economy@tasc to provide a public forum for economic debate.
Peadar Kirby notes in his post, “we need to debate how the state and the market should relate to one another: in other words, what is the role of the state in configuring the market for social development and how should the state play that role?”.
I hope that progressive-economy@tasc can play a role in shaping and driving forward this and other debates.
Paula Clancy is Director of TASC
Economics has been described as the 'dismal science'. Economists are often stereotyped as conservative, wallowing in bad news, unfeeling and sometimes allied to powerful financial, economic circles and interests. Academic economics has acquired the reputation of being almost a branch of applied mathematics, with a series of assumptions and models that bear little or no relationship to the real world. Yet, formal theorising and selective empirical analysis has not stopped many economists from offering comprehensive advice and prescriptions to Governments or the commercial organisations that employ them. In the late 19th Century, 'Political Economy' was replaced by 'economics'. From then on, 'economics' began to assume a subordinating role in offering 'values-free' advice based on models of the world that reflected the inherent assumptions and interests of those who practiced and sponsored it. In short, economics has long been seen as the preserve of people with unique access to theory, information and policy wisdom - if only politicians and senior policy makers listened and employed more of them!
However, homo economicus has not saved the world.
TASC believes that it is time to reclaim 'economics' by rediscovering the political, social and cultural in 'economics'. We assert that economics is not, and cannot be, neutral. The very questions we seek to ask, the assumptions we chose to make and the options we decide to recommend are based on a set of values. More to the point, we propose a vision of a different society and polity - one in which people, meaningful relationships and human well-being are ends and not means to serving some other elusive goal. To compete we must also be ready to cooperate. A society that is best placed to be competitive and sustainable on global and domestic markets, we claim, is one that is founded on principles of social justice, equality and democracy where markets work to serve the common good and human rights are respected. A new Political Economy is one that opens up the insights of various disciplines to each other so that 'economics' takes its place in a dialogue involving many different academic disciplines as well as civil society, the world of politics and public discourse.
A new Political Economy must address the fundamental choices, values and alternative possible ways forward that the traditional practice of 'economics' shies away from. For this reason, TASC has created progressive-economy@tasc to provide a public forum for economic debate.
Peadar Kirby notes in his post, “we need to debate how the state and the market should relate to one another: in other words, what is the role of the state in configuring the market for social development and how should the state play that role?”.
I hope that progressive-economy@tasc can play a role in shaping and driving forward this and other debates.
Paula Clancy is Director of TASC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)