Branko Milanovic — A short note on Skidelsky’s interpretation of Schumpeter

Why do we have this “problem” with Schumpeter? Because in his own work, Schumpeter shows a duality, or even a contradiction, between his often unquestionable endorsement of “economics as physics” in HEA where it is hailed as an unambiguous progress toward economics becoming an exact science, and scarce use of this approach in Schumpeter own work. His “Theory of Economic Development” is indeed in its structure very abstract and arid, somewhat similar to Ricardo’s “Principles” (of whose methodology, by the way, Schumpeter was very critical in HEA), but is not mathematical at all. His “Business Cycles” is heavily empirical but shown scant relationship to Walras and is generally anti-theoretical. (I have to confess that I tried three times to read his “Business Cycles” and that I always failed. It seems almost unbelievable that such a splendid writer and beautiful mind produced a work--which moreover he originally saw as a competitor to “The General Theory”—of, yes, such messiness and unreadability.)

Global Inequality
A short note on Skidelsky’s interpretation of Schumpeter
Branko Milanovic | Visiting Presidential Professor at City University of New York Graduate Center and senior scholar at the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), and formerly lead economist in the World Bank's research department and senior associate at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Also

Liberation from the shackles of space

Full text of my New Republic interview

Chris Dillow — What I Learned At Oxford

How to study economics.

Link to Bill Mitchell, too.

Stumbling and Mumbling

What I Learned At Oxford

Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle (UK)

Lars P. Syll — The state of modern macroeconomics – indescribable misery

Lars explains in some detail what is wrong with dominant neoclassical approach to macroeconomics and what needs to be done. It really comes down to Paul Davidson's criticism of assuming ergodicity in modeling a non-ergodic environment, which is akin to trying to sledgehammer a round peg into a square hole.

Unlike physical systems, social systems operate in terms of feedback and so the future does not necessarily resemble the past in a predictable way, no matter how sophisticated the statistical analysis — as Keynes pointed out decades ago in his criticism of econometrics. Economies, being people-based hence reflexive, are organic rather than mechanistic, so mechanistic modeling does not apply. Methodological atomism is a dead-end.

Lars P. Syll's Blog

The state of modern macroeconomics – indescribable misery

Lars P. Syll | Professor of Social Studies and Associate professor of Economic History at Malmö University

Macroeconomics is not a pure science. It is a policy science, or better, an aspect of poli sci, to the degree it can be called a science. It is also normative in addition to positive, in that it is concerned with policy issues to the degree that government is involved, which in modern economies is in a huge way. As such it is a part of policy studies in general and need to be approached as such.

Here is a slightly edited response in an email exchange with Roger Erickson yesterday that speaks to this:

Roger: "How do you get people to explore their options? Clarity of purpose first! Then any and all methods become coincidental, rather than ideological. The same message is enshrined today in OBT&E. However, if left to name only, every named effort is always in danger of becoming it's own form of religion - rather than retaining it's function."

In my view, this requires a meta-disciplinary approach to policy studies. The departmental model of the university is in the way of this. It results in the compartmentalism of knowledge, with the result that knowledge workers end up working in closets instead of forums.

This is being realized in the area of consciousness studies, where a new field is emerging and attracting the whole range of scholars from the sciences, humanities and arts. Realization of the need for this unified approach came about for several reasons.

First, consciousness is foundational to experience, hence our awareness of self and world. It is also involved in our personal and social construction of the "world," which is not merely given but structured, for instance, in accordance with the prevailing cultural worldview as colored by subcultural affiliations and personal tendencies.

Secondly, the so-called hard problem of consciousness is reconciling quantity and quality in a comprehensive explanation. How color is perceived as qualitative based on quantifiably measurable differences in wave frequency and interference is a simple instance of this as yet unexplained conundrum. Science is essentially quantitative in its approach to a fundamentally qualitative world. Hence, the question arises as to whether a scientific explanation of consciousness is even possible when it is the field on which quantity and quality meet.

So the two major issues are the nature of consciousness and how it works in relation to a subject as a "person" and the object(s) for the subject as "reality." The problems involved in explaining consciousness are far from resolved but now there are a lot of very smart people working together on potential solutions. 

On thing is quite certain. Consciousness involves complexity and therefore emergence. It is fundamentally non-ergodic even though "rational." "Rational" cannot be equated with "ergodic" unless one is willing to hold also that consciousness is inherently non-rational, which is anti-humanistic. Most scientists are humanists, so that is not palatable to them. This dilemma is quite comparable to the state of most orthodox economists, which they "solve" by positing a rational representative agent.

A similar approach to the current approach to consciousness studies is needed to policy studies, in that many similar issues arise with respect to how consciousness manifests in various societies and the ways in which individuals contribute to manifesting social phenomena, where both consciousness and context are determinative. The challenge lies in capturing the relevant information and using it to its full potential for social optimization. Presently, there are a number of different fields that are concerned with aspects of this but there is little if any integration.

At present, policy is determined by policy wonks well versed in poli sci and history, academic economists using assumption-based models, business people applying business principles to government, and politicians interested in the next election, where the criterion is fundraising ability. These people are mostly working at cross purposes, and they are neither listening to heterodox opinion in their own fields, nor acquiring information and advice from other relevant fields like sociology. Moreover, there is no reconciliation of monetary economics with the rest of policy studies.

Economist Kenneth Boulding is an interesting example. Working from the Forties into the Eighties to develop an integrated approach that also brought in monetary economics, he quickly realized that he was going to make no headway in the economics profession, so he went his own way and co-founded General Systems Theory.

"Systems theory studies the structure and properties of systems in terms of relationships, from which new properties of wholes emerge. It was established as a science by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth E. Boulding, William Ross Ashby, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson and others in the 1950's. Systems theory, in its transdisciplinary role, brings together theoretical principles and concepts from ontology, philosophy of science, physics, biology and engineering. Applications are found in numerous fields including geography, sociology, political science, organizational theory, management, psychotherapy and economics amongst others." — Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory by Gregory Mitchell

General Systems Theory is being applied in psychology and consciousness studies, where Boulding is well recognized. How many economists have even heard of him? Interestingly, through Randy has and has written on his work.

So the groundwork has already been done in systems theory and monetary economics and the foundation laid. No the question is how the superstructure gets built on that foundation, considering the powerful interests heavily vested in the status quo and therefore aligned against change, especially holistic change that runs counter to privilege and favoring special interests. Here is where issues of power come in. See, for instance, Michael Perelman, "The Power of Economics and the Economics of Power," and The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills.

I would be pessimistic about change in the face of these obstacles if were not for the vise that is tightening, one face of which is looming resource shortage as the emerging world comes on line and the opposing face is the increasing pace and attendant consequences of global warming. Given the fragility of the financial system due to lack of understanding of monetary economics and rampant corruption, this trend could be greatly exacerbated. Humanity is at make or break it moment, and a whole lot of younger people globally realize this, and see their futures hanging in balance. So there is reason to hope that sense will prevail and humanity will pick up the tools that it has already developed and are available.

Against Friedman: Why Assumptions Matter

I have previously discussed Milton Friedman’s infamous 1953 essay, ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics.’ The basic argument of Friedman’s essay is the unrealism of a theory’s assumptions should not matter; what matters are the predictions made by the theory. A truly realistic economic theory would have to incorporate so many aspects of humanity that it would be impractical or computationally impossible to do so. Hence, we must make simplifications, and cross check the models against the evidence to see if we are close enough to the truth. The internal details of the models, as long as they are consistent, are of little importance.

The essay, or some variant of it, is a fallback for economists when questioned about the assumptions of their models. Even though most economists would not endorse a strong interpretation of Friedman’s essay, I often come across the defence ’it’s just an abstraction, all models are wrong’ if I question, say, perfect competition, utility, or equilibrium. I summarise the arguments against Friedman’s position below.

Unlearning Economics
Against Friedman: Why Assumptions Matter

Lars Syll — How do we attach probabilities to the world?

There are no such things as free-standing probabilities – simply because probabilities are strictly seen only defined relative to chance set-ups – probabilistic nomological machines like flipping coins or roulette-wheels. And even these machines can be tricky to handle. Although prob(fair coin lands heads|I toss it) = prob(fair coin lands head & I toss it)|prob(fair coin lands heads) may be well-defined, it’s not certain we can use it, since we cannot define the probability that I will toss the coin given the fact that I am not a nomological machine producing coin tosses.
No nomological machine – no probability.

Lars P. Syll's Blog
How do we attach probabilities to the world?
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Similar to transmission mechanism in causal argument. No mechanism and the argument is just handwaving.

White House Promotes a Bioeconomy

 The Obama administration is expected to announce a broad plan on Thursday to foster development of the nation’s “bioeconomy,” including the use of renewable resources and biological manufacturing methods.
The National Bioeconomy Blueprint, as the plan is called, discusses a variety of measures and strategies to spur research and development of medical treatments, crops, biofuels and biological manufacturing processes that would replace harsher industrial methods.

Read it at The New York Times | Energy & Environment

White House Promotes a Bioeconomy
By Andrew Pollack

Economics needs to abandon mechanistic models, which came in with the Industrial Revolution, Newtonian physics, and technological innovtion, and get back to biological models, which were characteristic of the Agricultural Age. Think the film, Being There.

There's a down side though, too:

Some groups are also calling for regulation of a field that could be a cornerstone of the bioeconomy, synthetic biology, which involves synthesizing DNA to create novel organisms to perform specific tasks. The blueprint does note that creation and use of novel organisms “carry potential safety and security risks if misapplied.”

Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, an environmental organization, said the whole idea of a bioeconomy was misguided. Using crops and other plants for energy or manufacturing could lead to destruction of forests, particularly in the tropics, and increases in food prices“A biomass economy is the recipe for more land grabs, increased hunger, particularly in the developing world, and putting more control of land and food production in the hand of large agribusiness,” he said.