Author Topic: Michael Roberts: Rethinking Rethinking economics  (Read 108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richard Mellor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
Michael Roberts: Rethinking Rethinking economics
« on: August 16, 2018, 02:41:31 PM »
Michael Roberts: Rethinking Rethinking economics

Available here
by Michael Roberts

Can economics ever become ?pluralist??  Namely, will the  universities and research institutes in the major capitalist economies  expand their teaching and ideas to cover not just mainstream  neoclassical and Keynesian theories but also more radical heterodox  themes (post-Keynesian, Austrian and Marxian)?  If you look at the list of study courses that are considered heterodox by Heterodox News, there are not many in  the UK and the US and are concentrated in a just few colleges ? with the  big names having no such courses at all.

Rethinking Economics
, a pressure group of academics and students was launched over four years ago to turn this round. Now in July, Rethinking Economics?said  Britain?s universities were failing to equip economics students with  the skills that businesses and the government say they need. Following  extensive interviews with employers, including organisations such as the  Bank of England, it found that universities were producing ?a  cohort of economic practitioners who struggle to provide innovative  ideas to overcome economic challenges or use economic tools on  real-world problems?.  Moreover, the group said, ?when  political decisions are backed by economics reasoning, as they so often  are, economists are unable to communicate ideas to the public, resulting  in a large democratic deficit.? 

There are efforts among some academics to broaden the outlook of economics graduates. The Core project was adopted by 13 UK universities last September and has won 3.7m from the Economic and Social Research Council.  As the Guardian put it: ?the  developers of the programme also claim it has freed itself from  neoliberal thinking, which judges markets to be self-adjusting and  consumers and businesses to be operating with the same information. The  world is full of asymmetric power and information relationships, and  Core reflects this.?

The Core project has produced an antagonistic reaction from  right-wing commentators.  The prolific right-wing British political  blogger, ?Guido Fawkes?, tweeted: ?The left in the  universities are trying to rehabilitate Marxist economics to poison the  future. Very concerning that they got 3.7 million of taxpayers? money  to do it?.  One strong promoter of Core and Rethinking Economics, the leftist economist, Jonathan Portes, responded to Fawkes that he was sure that none of the contributors to the Core programme were Marxist and ?I?m obviously not a ?Marxist?.  And that is true.  

The reality is that Rethinking Economics and Core is dominated by  Keynesian ideas with hardly any look-in for Marxist ones.  It?s true  that Sam Bowles is one of the main coordinators of the Core textbook project and he considered himself a (neo?) Marxist in the past ? but his recent  comments on Marx?s theories at the 200th anniversary suggest otherwise  now (see here).

I am reminded of that first London conference of Rethinking Economics.   At that meeting, leading radical economists Victoria Chick and Sheila  Dow told us that reform of society would be impossible until we can  change the ?closed mind-set? of mainstream economics. As if the issue  was a psychological one. Mainstream economics is closed to alternatives  because there a material interest involved. But Chick and Dow seemed to  think that it?s just a question changing the mind-set of other  economists that support the market ? for their own good because  austerity and neoliberal policies are actually bad for capitalism  itself.

More recently, leading leftist economists in the UK held a seminar on  the state of mainstream economics, as taught in the universities.?  They?kicked this off by nailing a poster with 33 theses?critiquing  mainstream economics to the door of the London School of Economics.?  This publicity gesture attempted to remind us that it was the 500th  anniversary of when Martin Luther nailed his ?95 theses?to  the Castle Church, Wittenberg and provoked the beginning of the  Protestant reformation against the ?one true religion? of Catholicism.

The economists were purporting to tell us that mainstream economics  was like Catholicism and must be protested against, just as Luther did  back in 1517.? But as I commented then, is a revolution against the mainstream really to be painted as similar  to Luther?s protestant revolt?? The history of the reformation tells us  the protestant version of Christianity did not lead to a new pluralistic  order and freedom to worship.? On the contrary,?Luther was a bigot who worked with the authorities to crush more radical movements based on the peasants, led by Thomas Munzer.

Don?t get me wrong: attempts to expand economic ideas beyond the mainstream can only be good news and the content of the Core project is really stimulating and educational.  But it seems that, for  Rethinking Economics and Core, the mainstream economic ?religion? is  just neoclassical theory and that it is neoliberal economics that must  be overthrown. They have nothing to say against Keynesian economics ?  indeed variants of Keynes are actually the way forward for them.

Take the new course at University College London for undergraduates. It?s called Rethinking Capitalism ? a new elective module for UCL undergraduates.  Run by Mariana Mazzucato, the director of the Institute of Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) and author of The value of everything, it?s a great initiative, with guest lecturers including Branco Milanovic. . The module aims to ?help  students develop their critical thinking and make the connections  between economic theory and real world policy issues. It will provide an  introduction to a range of different economics perspectives, including  Neoclassical, post-Keynesian, ecological, evolutionary, Marxist and  institutional economics theories and how their different assumptions  link to different public policies.?  But looking at the BASC0037 Rethinking Capitalism. I am sceptical that students will hear much about Marxist economic theory within its ?heterodox? approach.

Keynesian theory dominates in Rethinking Economics and so do the  policy conclusions arising from Keynesian ideas in wider left circles.   Take the recent seminar organised by the IIPP in the UK?s House of Lords to discuss the financing of innovation (badly needed given the poor performance of the British capitalist sector in productivity growth).  But  who did the IIPP line up to discuss with Mazzacuto the very limited  proposal for a UK national investment bank to replace the European  Investment Bank when the UK leaves the EU next year?  It was Tory Lord  David Willetts, and as keynote speaker, Liberal leader Sir Vince Cable!   Cable was quoted approvingly to say that ?The current enthusiasm  for ?selling the family silver? (ie privatisation)) has its roots in  bizarre Treasury accounting conventions.?  This was very rich  hypocrisy coming from Cable, who when in coalition with the  Conservatives, presided over the privatisation of Royal Mail, Britain?s  state-owned postal service, selling it off for a price at least 1bn  below market value ? yes, selling the ?family silver?.  I?m not sure  that the IIPP will get far with its laudable aim of increasing the state  role in innovation and investment by relying on these people for  support.

And Keynesian ideas are central to the opinions of key advisers for the leftist Labour leaders in Britain.  In a recent article, Ann Pettifor, director of Prime Economics,  blamed the economic crisis in Turkey and other ?emerging economies? on  ?orthodox economics?, in particular the move by central banks to hike  interest rates and ?normalise? monetary policy. I?ll be debating with  Ann Pettifor on what to do about finance at this year?s Momentum conference taking place during the Labour Party conference in Liverpool in late September.  I too have pointed out the risk that this policy entails for the world economy when profitability is still low and debt is high.

Pettifor?s conclusion was that ?it was time to ditch economic orthodoxy? and?.?revive the radical and revolutionary monetary theory and policies of John Maynard Keynes? as the way to avoid another global crisis.  But regular readers of this blog will know that I have shown Keynes?s ideas were far from radical, let alone revolutionary.  And they certainly would not avoid another global crisis.  And thinking they would do so would be a step back for the labour movement and its leaders.
One key points is that capitalism is not just a monetary economy as Keynesians think; it is a money-making economy.  You can print money indefinitely, but you cannot turn it into  value under capitalism without the exploitation of human labour.  When  you sift through the body of ideas in Core, one thing stands out: the  failure to analyse modern economies with a law of value and a theory of  exploitation for profit.  Profit and exploitation do not appear in the  body of Core work (except for fleeting references to Marx).  And yet  this is at the heart of capitalism and is the soul of Marxist theory.

Are there textbooks that do offer a Marxist alternative to neoclassical and Keynesian schools?  My favourite is Competing Schools of Economic Thought by Lefteris Tsoulfidis.  Then there is Contending Economic Theories by Richard Wolff And Stephen Resnick.  There is the new two-book textbook on Microeconomics and Macroeconomics by Ben Fine and Ourania Dimakou.  And of course, there is Anwar Shaikh?s monumental Capitalism (which the dedicated can dip into if they have their brains working!).   These should be on the curriculum of Core and Rethinking Economics  courses. Maybe they will be.  But it may require a rethink.
Source: Michael Roberts: Rethinking Rethinking economics