Friday, July 03, 2009
Attitudes to inequality
A belated look at the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on Understanding Attitudes to Tackling Economic Inequality by Tom Horton and Louise Barnfield of the Fabian Society. A couple of points that struck me:
* Almost everyone defined themselves as in the middle of the income spectrum. This is despite the fact that those polled were a cross-section of the population. The “income gap” was therefore interpreted as being between the “middle” and the super rich.
* The idea of prioritising economic growth as a way of raising living standards was unpopular (p45). This could well be a popular perception but it is also possible that the authors’ prejudices skewed the results. They linked support for economic growth with a free market vision and support for smaller government. It apparently it did not even occur to them that it is possible to be in favour of strong growth without being a free marketeer.
* Almost everyone defined themselves as in the middle of the income spectrum. This is despite the fact that those polled were a cross-section of the population. The “income gap” was therefore interpreted as being between the “middle” and the super rich.
* The idea of prioritising economic growth as a way of raising living standards was unpopular (p45). This could well be a popular perception but it is also possible that the authors’ prejudices skewed the results. They linked support for economic growth with a free market vision and support for smaller government. It apparently it did not even occur to them that it is possible to be in favour of strong growth without being a free marketeer.
Labels: growth, inequality
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Treason against the planet?
I have not posted for a couple of days as I have been incredibly busy. However, Paul Krugman’s column in the New York Times on Sunday particularly amused me. The Nobel prize winning economist denounced the “deniers” who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill as guilty of “treason against the planet”. It is hard to see what this means. How can someone be loyal to what is essentially a lump of rock?
It is certainly possible to be concerned about the impact of environmental degradation on humanity. But “treason against the planet” is absurd.
Krugman is undoubtedly clever but his argument on this point makes no sense.
It is certainly possible to be concerned about the impact of environmental degradation on humanity. But “treason against the planet” is absurd.
Krugman is undoubtedly clever but his argument on this point makes no sense.
Labels: America, climate, environment
Monday, June 29, 2009
Economic restructuring needed
The following comment by me appeared in the latest Fund Strategy (29 June).
Last week’s World Bank forecast on the global economy was enough to bring misery to anyone looking for “green shoots”.
The international financial organisation is expecting a 2.9% fall in global output this year. That is appalling. It is rare for global output growth to dip below zero.
Usually, a recession in one area is offset by stronger growth elsewhere. A nearly 3% fall on a global scale means misery for billions.
The detailed figures are as bad as the headline ones. Global trade looks set to fall by 10%, while private capital flows will plummet.
An Economic Outlook published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was almost as downbeat with a forecast of 2.2% growth this year. However, it is slightly more optimistic about the prospects for global recovery.
Several lessons can be drawn from these figures. Most obviously, economic recovery is still a long way off. Although some indicators have improved, it is only to be expected given the massive scale of financial and monetary stimulus. Overall, the world economy remains in a dire state.
It also raises awkward questions about the likely nature of the recovery. Although a recovery of sorts will come, it looks set to be anaemic. But most importantly, it raises the need for economic restructuring. The world’s economic authorities have generally been fairly successful if measured by the relatively narrow goal of maintaining stability. The financial system has not collapsed, despite teetering on the edge at points. But restructuring the economy to allow for dynamic growth is another matter.
A cultural shift in the way economics is viewed is necessary for restructuring to be successful. It means ditching the dogma of environmentalism and “sustainability”. Such ideas are essentially about placing limits on economic growth. Yet what is needed is the exact opposite: unleashing growth so it can achieve its full creative power.
It is also necessary to let weak businesses go under. Rather than maintain clapped-out companies for the sake of stability, the emphasis should be on encouraging new, more dynamic sectors of the economy.
Strong economic growth is enormously beneficial to the whole of society. But achieving it means being prepared to encourage a fundamental cultural and economic shift.
Last week’s World Bank forecast on the global economy was enough to bring misery to anyone looking for “green shoots”.
The international financial organisation is expecting a 2.9% fall in global output this year. That is appalling. It is rare for global output growth to dip below zero.
Usually, a recession in one area is offset by stronger growth elsewhere. A nearly 3% fall on a global scale means misery for billions.
The detailed figures are as bad as the headline ones. Global trade looks set to fall by 10%, while private capital flows will plummet.
An Economic Outlook published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was almost as downbeat with a forecast of 2.2% growth this year. However, it is slightly more optimistic about the prospects for global recovery.
Several lessons can be drawn from these figures. Most obviously, economic recovery is still a long way off. Although some indicators have improved, it is only to be expected given the massive scale of financial and monetary stimulus. Overall, the world economy remains in a dire state.
It also raises awkward questions about the likely nature of the recovery. Although a recovery of sorts will come, it looks set to be anaemic. But most importantly, it raises the need for economic restructuring. The world’s economic authorities have generally been fairly successful if measured by the relatively narrow goal of maintaining stability. The financial system has not collapsed, despite teetering on the edge at points. But restructuring the economy to allow for dynamic growth is another matter.
A cultural shift in the way economics is viewed is necessary for restructuring to be successful. It means ditching the dogma of environmentalism and “sustainability”. Such ideas are essentially about placing limits on economic growth. Yet what is needed is the exact opposite: unleashing growth so it can achieve its full creative power.
It is also necessary to let weak businesses go under. Rather than maintain clapped-out companies for the sake of stability, the emphasis should be on encouraging new, more dynamic sectors of the economy.
Strong economic growth is enormously beneficial to the whole of society. But achieving it means being prepared to encourage a fundamental cultural and economic shift.
Labels: economics, finance, Fund Strategy
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Amnesty’s growth scepticism
Sameer Dossani, the director of the Demand Dignity campaign at Amnesty International USA, directly counter-poses human rights to economic development in an article in yesterday’s Boston Globe. After describing how a gang attacked and sexually abused the children of a government minister in the Congo he goes on to argue that:
“Governments have reneged on human rights obligations in the belief that economic growth alone would lift all boats. But now the tide is receding. Virtually none of the growth of the last two decades benefited poor and marginalized communities; instead, the gap between rich and poor only deepened in many parts of the world.”
For Dossani it is not economic growth that will bring development. Instead the priority has to be tackling human rights. Evidently Amnesty is promoting a campaign along these lines:
“Now, as the global economic crisis threatens to push an estimated 53 million more people into poverty this year, Amnesty International is launching the most ambitious campaign of its nearly 50-year history.
“Just as we have fought effectively to protect civil and political rights on behalf of tens of thousands of political prisoners, we intend to mobilize our volunteers and supporters to hold governments, corporations, armed groups, and others accountable for the human rights abuses that drive millions around the world into poverty.”
This is an upside down way of looking at the world. Economic forces are responsible for the increase in poverty in the last year or two. No doubt governments will sometimes use repression to quell discontent but economic forces are primarily to blame for poverty.
The logic of Amnesty’s position is to encourage more external intervention in poor countries – all in the name of protecting human rights – while leaving economic inequality intact.
“Governments have reneged on human rights obligations in the belief that economic growth alone would lift all boats. But now the tide is receding. Virtually none of the growth of the last two decades benefited poor and marginalized communities; instead, the gap between rich and poor only deepened in many parts of the world.”
For Dossani it is not economic growth that will bring development. Instead the priority has to be tackling human rights. Evidently Amnesty is promoting a campaign along these lines:
“Now, as the global economic crisis threatens to push an estimated 53 million more people into poverty this year, Amnesty International is launching the most ambitious campaign of its nearly 50-year history.
“Just as we have fought effectively to protect civil and political rights on behalf of tens of thousands of political prisoners, we intend to mobilize our volunteers and supporters to hold governments, corporations, armed groups, and others accountable for the human rights abuses that drive millions around the world into poverty.”
This is an upside down way of looking at the world. Economic forces are responsible for the increase in poverty in the last year or two. No doubt governments will sometimes use repression to quell discontent but economic forces are primarily to blame for poverty.
The logic of Amnesty’s position is to encourage more external intervention in poor countries – all in the name of protecting human rights – while leaving economic inequality intact.
Labels: development, ethics
China's humanising development
Neil Davenport’s review on spiked of Leslie Chang’s Factory Girls: Voices from the Heart of Modern China brings out the human side of China’s rapid economic development. Critics tend to one-sidedly condemn China’s rapid industrialisation and the huge internal migration that has accompanied it. But Davenport show it is generally seen as far preferable to the isolated tedium of rural life. He concludes:
“By portraying how Chinese people are actually living their lives, as opposed to talking about how they should be living their lives, Chang provides a clear and dynamic portrait of Chinese society and the individuals undergoing transformation. The conclusion to be drawn from Factory Girls is not that development is dangerous but that its humanising reach cannot come quickly enough for millions of Chinese people. There is nothing misanthropic or childish or apologetic in advocating that.”
“By portraying how Chinese people are actually living their lives, as opposed to talking about how they should be living their lives, Chang provides a clear and dynamic portrait of Chinese society and the individuals undergoing transformation. The conclusion to be drawn from Factory Girls is not that development is dangerous but that its humanising reach cannot come quickly enough for millions of Chinese people. There is nothing misanthropic or childish or apologetic in advocating that.”
Labels: book, china, development, spiked
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Green growth is official
It’s official. The leaders of the world’s largest economies have endorsed the dogma of “green growth”. Ministers from the 30 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development alongside 10 other nations declared their support for the concept at a conference in Paris.
For my take on how “green growth” means austerity see the post of 2 March 2009 and the related link.
For my take on how “green growth” means austerity see the post of 2 March 2009 and the related link.
Labels: economics, environment, growth
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
All Consuming
Whatever happened to the “Labour left”? Answer: it has become just about the most conservative and growth sceptic section of society.
Neal Lawson, the chair of Compass and a former adviser to Gordon Brown, is about to have a book called All Consuming published by Penguin. Its subtitle is “how shopping got us into this mess and how we can find our way out of it”. He has also just set up a website with the same name.
Evidently Lawson is organising a debate on the book on Monday 13 July in the House of Commons. Given that two of the other speakers are Madeleine Bunting and Oliver James, who broadly share Lawson’s outlook, there is unlikely to be much disagreement between them. Lawson also says in an email “I’m hoping to get someone from the advertising industry to come and put the case for more consumption”.
If I was not rushing to finish my book I would put in a bid to put the opposite case - although I suspect they would not have me. It is much easier from their perspective to present the debate as simply for and against mass consumption rather than grappling with the benefits of popular prosperity.
Neal Lawson, the chair of Compass and a former adviser to Gordon Brown, is about to have a book called All Consuming published by Penguin. Its subtitle is “how shopping got us into this mess and how we can find our way out of it”. He has also just set up a website with the same name.
Evidently Lawson is organising a debate on the book on Monday 13 July in the House of Commons. Given that two of the other speakers are Madeleine Bunting and Oliver James, who broadly share Lawson’s outlook, there is unlikely to be much disagreement between them. Lawson also says in an email “I’m hoping to get someone from the advertising industry to come and put the case for more consumption”.
If I was not rushing to finish my book I would put in a bid to put the opposite case - although I suspect they would not have me. It is much easier from their perspective to present the debate as simply for and against mass consumption rather than grappling with the benefits of popular prosperity.
Labels: book, consumption, economics, happiness
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Global Warming and Other Bollocks
An interesting-sounding new book on some of the pervasive environmentalist myths is about to be published. Global Warming and Other Bollocks (Metro) argues, among other things, that Turkey Twizzlers are good for you and polar bears are not dying out. It is by Stanley Feldman, a professor of anaesthetics at London University, and Vincent Marks, a former professor of clinical biochemistry and dean of medicine at the University of Surrey.
I do not agree with all the arguments but it sounds worth reading. There is a sneak preview in this article in yesterday’s Daily Mail.
I do not agree with all the arguments but it sounds worth reading. There is a sneak preview in this article in yesterday’s Daily Mail.
Labels: book, climate, consumption, environment, food
More on domestic violence
Following on from yesterday’s post I notice Oxfam is boasting of its successful involvement in a campaign against domestic violence in Malawi.
Duncan Green notes in his blog that: “In 2005, Oxfam’s Malawi programme along with its partners mounted a campaign to eliminate gender based violence which led to the passing of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill in Parliament in April 2006.” Evidently Oxfam mounted a media campaign along side the Malawi police on gender-based violence. The pressure led to the bill being passed into law.
As a result of such actions the problem of development becomes one of African men keeping African women down. The solution then becomes more intervention by the police in the affairs of ordinary African families. Economic development is sidelined from the agenda.
Duncan Green notes in his blog that: “In 2005, Oxfam’s Malawi programme along with its partners mounted a campaign to eliminate gender based violence which led to the passing of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill in Parliament in April 2006.” Evidently Oxfam mounted a media campaign along side the Malawi police on gender-based violence. The pressure led to the bill being passed into law.
As a result of such actions the problem of development becomes one of African men keeping African women down. The solution then becomes more intervention by the police in the affairs of ordinary African families. Economic development is sidelined from the agenda.
Labels: development, ethics
