The Mainstream is Back; with prejudice
by Benjamin on January 24, 2010
Ghostbusters meets Leviathan
If you saw the front page of the economist this week you might quickly conclude that the Washington Consensus and Neo-Classical economics is back in the ascendancy. “STOP!” shouts the front page, “The backlash against big government” and a suitably Leviathan-cum-Ghostbuster’s-Slimer picture swallowing the poor citizen follows. That the poor citizen looks like a suited and booted businessman is probably a freudian slip, but the image tells the story. Let business get on with its work and start cutting back on the government.
For the first time, to my memory, the front page leader runs onto the second page, and the reason is simple. The Economist is confused. It wants to encourage us to cut back on the government, limit its impact but it also wants us to support banks being propped up, government stimulus packages and systems of governance by that same government (a lesson of Haiti if not the global recession). So why is the Economist promoting and opposing ‘big’ government in the same editorial?
Their problem is one of prejudice, of ideology. Don’t take my words for it, the Economist is refreshingly open in stating the ideology to which it clings after reality has illustrated the problems with lack of government intervention in market places:
In these circumstances, hard rules make little sense. But prejudices are still useful – and this newspapers prejudice is to look for ways to make the state smaller. That is partly for philosophical reasons: we prefer to give power to individuals, rather than governments. But pragmatism also comes into it. (Economist Jan 23: Leader p. 9)
They can’t be serious! They oppose government on the philosophical grounds that individuals need to be empowered and protected from big scary states. So much for empirical evidence. Surely, if there’s anything the last 12 months have shown us it is that the individual is not under threat from the state as the leviathan in the 21st century. Yes in the 17th century when Hobbes wrote his book the state was all powerful (Think Cromwell). And if we talk of Myanmar or such states then yes sure. But in today’s market economy the label of Leviathan should be applied to those enitites ‘too big to fail’ – companies.
Hobbes's 1652 Leviathan was the government. Ours may be the firm
Banks have been given a bad reputation these last months, but for good reason. Oil, media, pharma, cigarettes, software – all of these industries have their monopolists and their scare stories. Aren’t they the 21st century leviathan? What governments try to do is to support both companies and individual citizens. Where the company is responsible to the shareholder, the government is responsible to the electorate – sort of. The pragmatism refered to by the Economist is their fear of government mandarins directing private activity. A fair concern, but is that any more fair than worrying about the lobbying and advertising campaigns of monopolies and oligopolies? Too quickly will we forget what has happened in the last year, and move back to a trajectory of prejudice and ideology without understanding the economy or its features.
I wish that the academic economic community would be as open as the economist in declaring its inherent biases or perhaps investigating them. Yes, David Colander and others talked about how we should change the way we teach economics as a result of the crisis at this year’s AEA meeting, but he’s been saying that for a while and I don’t think anyone will change their ways. Sad.
