With its intimidating Washington headquarters and teams of crack young policy wonks jetting into troubled countries to read the riot act, the IMF has a reputation as a bastion of economic orthodoxy.
However, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde’s intervention last week at the fund’s annual meetings in Tokyo, where she warned the world’s finance ministers against slashing public budgets too far, too fast, showed that in the topsy-turvy world of economics after the crunch, the most conservative institutions have sometimes been in the vanguard of the intellectual revolution.
In the midst of the deepest and longest-lasting economic malaise since the Great Depression, you might expect practitioners of economics to be wracked with self-doubt, academic departments from California to Cambridge sweeping away the old thinking that gave intellectual heft to the claims of financial sector investment firms to be spreading risk and making the financial world a safer place.
However, David Blanchflower, a US economist and former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, says most people in the profession have sailed on unperturbed: “Economics proceeds as if nothing has happened since 2008. Everybody’s going on doing exactly the same things they always did, teaching the same classes.”
As for the forecasting record of many of the world’s most eminent economic institutions, not least the Bank of England, he said: “In many ways, we would have been better off to hire a monkey to throw darts at a dartboard.”
The bank, the UK’s independent Office for Budget Responsibility established by British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, and the vast majority of thinktanks and financial sector forecasters failed to anticipate the severity of the Great Recession, and the painstaking nature of the recovery.
Yet many economists persist in clinging to their cherished mathematical constructions of the world, simply postponing the upturn each quarter when confronted with the reality that it has failed to materialize. Few have conceded that some of the fundamental tenets of their work — that individuals are perfectly rational, or markets always clear at the right price — need to be junked.
There are islands of resistance. Two former winners of the economics Nobel, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, have used their prominence as public intellectuals over the past five years to issue repeated rebukes to policymakers for failing to grasp the scale of the crisis, and take sufficiently radical action to protect the economy from the worst ravages of the downturn.
Maverick thinkers such as Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of Black Swan, whose latest book, Antifragile, on the fragility of systems, was cited by Sir Mervyn King in a speech last week, have sought to popularize the fact that model-based, mathematized economics is based on fundamental misunderstandings of the world.
However, Krugman and Stiglitz were already well-established as radicals, with strong sympathies for the Keynesian analysis that premature public spending cuts would inflict untold damage.
The IMF’s shift, from cheerleading for austerity to advocating a gentler approach, shows just how much old orthodoxies are crumbling in the face of the facts. Five years after the onset of the crisis, the eurozone is on the brink of collapse and the UK is mired in a double-dip recession, despite embracing drastic deficit cuts.
Eric Beinhocker is the executive director of Oxford’s Institute for New Economic Thinking, part of a transatlantic effort to rethink the basic tenets taught to students over recent decades.
He says: “The crisis has revealed enormous gaps in economists’ understanding of the linkages between the financial system and the broader economy. Before the crisis, few economists would have predicted that trouble in an obscure corner of the US mortgage market could cascade into a global calamity.”
He argues that there is lots of work going on to address these shortcomings, but “some advocate tweaking existing models, while others feel a more radical rethink is needed.”
National Institute for Economic and Social Research director Jonathan Portes falls into the latter camp. He is a fierce critic of the British government’s deficit-cutting strategy. Yet he says that in microeconomics — the bottom-up study of individual firms and markets — it would be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“I don’t think the crisis tells us much about the fundamental underpinnings of microeconomics,” he said.
However, he believes where economists failed was in assuming that finance worked just like any other market: “When it came to financial companies, it turned out we needed to think about them completely differently. More markets are not necessarily better.”
He adds that one lesson economists may need to learn is to be more humble about the predictive power of their economic models, however neat and precise the mathematics that underlies them. Complex mathematical equations have replaced what Blanchflower calls “the economics of walking about,” as the foundation of the modern subject.
Lord Skidelsky, economic historian and biographer of Keynes, agrees: “It may be that there’s no perfect model and that the quest for one is an error. Maybe we need different models, different theories, for different situations, and that’s the best we can do. Keynes said economics was a moral science, not a natural science — by which I mean that it has to take into account the variability of human situations.”
In other words, economics is not physics, because people are by their nature unpredictable. No one is going to discover an economic “God particle” that explains why someone decides to sell their house, hire an extra worker or buy a new car.
“There’s no new paradigm; and perhaps the search for one is a bit misguided,” Skidelsky said.” My general feeling is that Nobel prizes in economics very closely follow current fashions in the discipline.”
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his