In Praise of the Outsider

Universities are a frequent whipping-boy in these posts…….mainly for the compartmentalisation of the social sciences; the obfuscating nature of the prose which results as they disappear up one another’s arses; for the dominance and unjustifiable arrogance of the economists; and for the managerialist grab of the past few decades

This, of course reflects the prevailing neo-liberalism - which threw the idea of “learning for learning’s sake” completely out of the window and turned, instead, to a clear and strong insistence on vocational relevance

I’ll readily confess, however, that my cheap shots conceal the mixed feelings I still have about my own (ultimately painful) 17-year experience of academia….

I never allowed myself the discipline of keeping my nose to the intellectual grindstone - I was too busy proselytising - but I’m always secretly delighted when someone calls me a “scholar” (which happens!)   

What I object to, however, is the narrowness of the world which not only envelops the normal scholar but is then automatically transmitted to post-graduates - who are forced to spend years on a sub-sub-sub field of a discipline. Little wonder that we are so badly served with books about key issues – such as the global financial crash..

I try, occasionally, to explore why specialists write such inferior books compared to those who have resisted groupthink and who approach an issue more creatively…..from a multidisciplinary point of view. I find myself using the metaphor of a bridge, border or network.

Perhaps “outsider” is a better term (??) since it better conveys the sense of not belonging to the group – of being on the periphery…..Indeed the word “periphery” better conveys the sense of the messages and pressures from diverse sources which help avoid "groupthink"…  

And I have probably been insufficiently sensitive to the system in which social scientists are trapped…Academics are now under pressure to publish - with their Departments rewarded financially for those who have high ratings from what’s called “peer-reviews”. 

Those who accept the “conventional wisdom” in their fields and write in jargon will generally score well in these ratings. 
But go off piste and/or write in plain language the (wo)man in the street can understand and you’re in trouble. 
One of the concluding chapters of The Econocracy – the perils of leaving economics to the experts by Earle, Moran and Ward-Perkins (2017) explains this very well.

Some exceptional people have not been prepared to accept this - and I want to pay tribute to those who have challenged the conventional wisdom and produced books written for the common (wo)man…..

The list starts with some ex-academics - David Korten, calling himself an “engaged citizen”, is the best known. I remember the impact his first book made when it first came out all of 25 years ago. The introduction is quite gripping – you can see for yourself

Then someone whose name is almost unknown - who decided to opt out completely from the academic rat-race….Harry Shutt is a freelance indeed “dissident” economist. That means someone with none of the institutional ties that break a man’s soul. Shutt earns his keep by project work - and writes books he actually wants to on subjects he chooses and in language he hopes will be understood by his readers. That shows in two of his books which have just come to my attention and which I incorporate into one of my famous tables…..

Titles which deserve more readers

Book Title	Status of author	Focus of book	comment
When Corporations rule the world; David Korton (1995 and 20th anniversary edition)	Free-lance writer Ex Harvard Business School Prof. One of world’s most respected ant-globalists	One of the first (and still amongst the few) books to explore the unusual aspects of the structure of the global company and analyse the damage it inflicts on us all	The link gives the complete book If you read nothing else read, the introductory chapter
The Trouble With Capitalism – An Enquiry into the Causes of Global Economic Failure; Harry Shutt (1998)	Free-lance economist	A wide-ranging book to help the general reader put contemporary events in a proper historical context - and to challenge what Shutt calls the “organised indifference” which ruling interests try to encourage	Still worth reading, 22 years on!
The Decline of Capitalism – Can a Self-regulated Profits System Survive? Harry Shutt (2005)	freelance Interview here with Harry Shutt	A short book (just 150pp) which focuses on events since 1990 and should be read in conjunction with his first book Google excerpts only for his 2 books	I would love to see a further update
Parecon – life after capitalism; Miichael Albert (2003)	Activist	The strange title word refers to “participatory economics”.	The link gives the entire book – which argues for an alternative way of thinking of economics
Inside Capitalism – an introduction to Political Economy; Paul Phillips (2003)	University economist	this is an rare intro to political economy which uses Canadian examples Google excerpts only	One of the clearest textbooks I’ve seen,
Supercapitalism – the transformation of business, democracy and everyday life; Robert Reich (2007).	University administrator who was US Cabinet member	One of the early books about the tension between capitalism and democracy – well summarised here	Link gives the entire book
The Crises of Capitalism – a different study of political economy; Saral Sarkar (2011)	Indian-german academic eco-activist	A book written by someone steeped in the critical literature and its activist circles whose background (presumably) allows him to pose questions and see things others don’t	Link gives the entire book
Global Capitalism and the crisis of humanity; William Robinson (2014)	prolific leftist activist sociologist	Google excerpts are unusually extensive The book is more academic than the others (certainly with denser references) but the opening pages “situate” the book nicely in the wider lit – always a plus for me	another clearly-written exposition..  read more about the author here

The Beast – part II

The penultimate post of 2019 surveyed the critical state in which the economics “discipline” has found itself in this past decade. Despite having an Economics degree and actually teaching the subject for a few years in a Polytechnic in the 1970s, I readily admit my confusions - globalisation - the new tools of financial engineering and IT have introduced totally new dimensions to the economic world and left me (and most others) very conscious of our ignorance.

I knew I had to put my distaste for economics books aside and take time try to understand not so much the financial crash but rather the true nature of this turbulent system

So, a couple of years ago, I produced two rare annotated lists of books. First of the key books written before the 2008 financial crash; then of those I judged worthy of mention which had appeared after the crash. How, you might reasonably ask, did you select these books? Why should we trust your judgement? I try to answer such questions here

One thing I noticed was how differently the various academic disciplines dealt with the subject. Economists seemed the obvious people to start with – but their texts were remarkably dry and clearly oblivious to a lot of important factors. For people who had failed to anticipate the crash, their tone was also a bit too cocky and self-assured. 

The sociologists had a more plausible story to tell but generally seemed too ready to critique it all. I was most impressed with the smaller numbers of political economists (Blyth, Collier, Stiglitz, Streecken and Varoufakis), economic historians (Tooze) and even a few journalists (Mander)

Honing the recommendations

The two lists I did in 2017 dealt with more than 100 books – and I realise my readers don’t have time for this. So last September I had another look at the lists and came up with clear recommendations first of 15 important books which were written before the crash; and then of about 20 which appeared after it   

Somehow, however, the books never satisfy – after all they tend to convey the same message –

- The system is voracious, never satisfied

- It’s unstable – boom and then bust

- It leads increasingly to more and more inequality – the 1% have been replaced by some 25 families who control 99% of the wealth

- markets are naturally “oligopolistic” – ie tending to be controlled by a few massive companies which engage in billion dollar marketing and destructive pricing

- markets display none of the characteristics on which economists base their claims about the benefits of markets   

But this doesn’t stop my belief that the next book will give me the answers I’m seeking… eg the latest Stiglitz or Milanovic. Just as the Minotaur has an unquenchable thirst for profit and development, so as readers we are never satisfied. …Somehow we have to resist this temptation….to learn when we have had (or know) enough

Is it the system – or us?

The posts take an interesting turn toward the end of the year when Robert Greene’s latest book sparked some thoughts about human nature; and Zuboff raised the issue of surveillance capitalism. The posts about human nature reminded me of a book which had made a big impact on me as far ago as 1978 – “The Seventh Enemy” by Ronald Higgins. It was one of the first to look at six looming issues - viz of the population explosion, food shortages, raw materials exhaustion, environmental degradation, nuclear power; and abuse of science and technology. And to suggest that the real enemy was the seventh – us, the human race! Higgins’ book is no longer available but you can get the gist from this BBC documentary.

The table in yesterday’s post contained the first half of last year’s posts about the economic system. The table below completes the job – with the first 8 being those most concerned with economics…..

Post title	What sparked it off	Why you should read it
Selecting a Brains Trust for the End Times	The best of the authors are invited to a dinner before the crash	All selections are invidious – I’ve chosen here the individuals who had the ability to write clearly about the nature of our economic system BEFORE the 2008 crash
For Serious Activists only	And after the crash	Those who helped our understanding most after 2008
Another World is Possible	Erik Olin-Wright	Few authors have dealt properly with utopia
What’s in a Name?	Searching for the best book to recommend about “capitalism”	An American journalist wins by a long chalk – with his “The Capitalist Papers”
New Economic Thinking	Some promising new perspectives	Some great hyperlinks
Capitalism – by academic discipline	I realised how rarely I have tried to define the beast	Very rare table which uses 3 different lens to find how 11 different academic disciplines try to define the beast
A rare example of interdisciplinarity	A book from a global institute for social progress	Most writing on the subject suffers from being written from a single discipline
Can Economics change its Spots?	Review of 5 books	Explains why noone should take economists seriously these days
How did we let them get away with it?	Mount’s “The New Few”	A brave right-winger admits exposes the new oligarchy
Human Nature	Robert Greene’s latest book	An assessment of our frailties which is superbly written
Generational Cycles	Robert Greene again	How the 1970s American Democrats killed a great populist tradition
Turning Points	Alt history	we need to push back more against social forces which are presented as irresistible..
Building Character	David Brooks “The Road to Character”	An unfashionable subject these days!
Is our social DNA  changing?	Daniel Bell, Richard Sennett, Fukuyama; Davis “Reckless Opportunists ”	Is 1980s’ greed and opportunism; and social media changing our behaviour?
More surveillance than capitalism	Zuboff’s trilogy	Why I have my doubts about an overly-hyped book from an author I used to admire
Bullshit Jobs	David Graeber’s latest	Explains the importance of a book the academics would like to ignore

Can Economics really change its spots?

The 6^th December issue of TLS had an important article by Paul Collier under the heading “Greed is Dead” (unfortunately now behind a paywall). It reviews 5 books which, in very different ways, subject the economics discipline to an intellectual battering which has, understandably, been building up a strong head of steam for the past decade. The titles give you a sense of the drift of the arguments–

-       “BLUEPRINT - The evolutionary origins of a good society”; Nicholas A. Christakis

-       “HOW BEHAVIOR SPREADS - The science of complex contagions”; Damon Centola

-       “LICENCE TO BE BAD - How economics corrupted us”; Jonathan Aldred

-       “WINNERS TAKE ALL - The elite charade of changing the world”; Anand Giridharadas

-       “PROSPERITY - Better business makes the greater good”; Colin Mayer

One of my posts at the beginning of the year actually concealed an important comment about economics –

As a social “scientist”, I have long had a healthy skepticism about the overconfident claims of particularly economists. 2008, of course, should have been the death knell for economics since it had succumbed some decades earlier to a highly-simplified and unrealistic model of the econom”y which was then starkly revealed in all its nakedness…..Steve Keen was one of the first economists to break ranks very publicly way back in 2001 and to set out an alternative - Debunking Economics – the naked emperor dethroned.

This coincided with economics students in Paris objecting to the homogeneity of syllabi and reaching out to others – creating in the next 15 years a movement which has become global

This is a good presentation on the issues (from 2012) and a little Penguin book The Econocracy – the perils of leaving economics to the exerts by Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins (2017) reflects their experience of stirring things up on the Manchester University economics programme. The book’s sub-title says it all!

Dani Rodrik is one of the few economists with a global reputation to support them (Ha-Yoon Chang is another) and indeed published an important book recently reviewing the state of economics - Economics Rules – the rights and the wrongs of the dismal science; (2016) which was nicely reviewed here

The Financial Times recently reviewed several other such books - so the situation is not beyond repair but we have to be realistic. Academic economists have invested a lifetime’s reputation and energy in offering the courses they do - and neither can nor will easily start offering programmes to satisfy future student demands for relevance and pluralism….. they will calculate that the chances are high that the next cohort will be less critical and more pliable... 

Paul Collier’s review is more optimistic. As you can see from the excerpt, the 5 books he has selected are only a sample of the torrent of critical contemporary analysis of the economic discipline – whose basic assumptions have indeed been compared to a religion. The first 2 books illustrate for Collier the scale of the scientific case against the economists’ worship of greed as the primary human motive. Sociability and cooperation have rather been the prevailing norms. Collier’s opening sentences seems to reflect his reading of the third book since it talks of

“Economic Man being conjured up in the 1950s by the economics profession. Our understanding of human evolution was then more rudimentary than it is now…Economic Man was duly characterised not just as greedy, lazy and selfish – which to some extent we are – but as only greedy, lazy and selfish”

Geoff Hodgson is an important political economist who would certainly not agree with the idea that the economics profession created a Grankenstein only in the 1950s. Indeed he wrote an entire book which traced the origins of this selfish model of man back a couple of hundred years - From pleasure machines to moral communities – an evolutionary economics without homo economicus; Geoff Hodgson (2013)

More perhaps to the point, I was in the early 1960s an Economics student at Glasgow University (where Adam Smith had taught in the 18^th century) and did a bit of a confessional last year about what I absorbed in those years…..

Despite my 4 years of economic studies (and some years actually teaching it to others!), I make no claim to understand the nature of the global plague that has befallen us in the past few decades. I start to read the books which promise to clear my confusion but find that my eyes soon glaze over….

I toiled during my studies in the early 1960s to make sense of its focus on marginal calculations and “indifference curves” but can remember only the following lessons from my four years engrossed in economics books

- the strictness of the various preconditions which governed the idea of (perfect) competition – making it a highly improbable occurrence (and the greater  reality being oligopoly);

- the questionable nature of the of notion of “profit-maximisation”;

- the belief (thanks to the writings of James Burnham and Tony Crosland) that management (not ownership) was the all- important factor

- trust (thanks to Keynes whose work was dinned into me) in the ability of government to deal with such things as “exuberant expectations”  

- the realization (through the report of the 1959 Radcliffe Commission) that cash was but a small part of money supply. Financial economics was in its infancy then.

For someone with my education and political motivation and experience, however, my continued financial illiteracy is almost criminal but not, I feel, in any way unusual. Most of us seem to lack the patience to buckle down and take the time and discipline it needs to understand the operation of the system of financial capitalism which now has us all in its thrall.
We leave it to the "experts" and have thereby surrendered what is left to us of citizenship and political power. Like many people, I’ve clicked, skimmed and saved – but rarely gone back to read thoroughly. The folders in which they have collected have had various names – such as “urgent reading” or “what is to be done” – but rarely accessed. Occasionally I remember one and blog about it.

The economics I was taught was, of course, Keynesian (Paul Samuelson was the bible) – but pluralist Tom Wilson may have been its moderate Professor but the staff included the well-known Marxist Ronald Meek.

If Collier (and Aldred) are correct and the economics virus has been with us for only 60 years, then I can understand their optimism about the possibility of change. But I’m on Hodgson’s side of the argument and think things will be a lot harder to shift.

Update; the Dissent magazine has also found critical books about economics for review - four more!

 

Further Reading; Heterodox Economics Directory (6th edition 2016)

A better economics

No sooner was my post about The Global Minotaur up than I found another of Yanis Varoufakis’ books freely available on the internet – this time a very original Foundation of Economics – a beginner’s companion (1997). It links nicely to a post last month about populism which had a little section dealing with the state of economics readers may have missed -

2008, of course, should have been the death knell for economics since it had succumbed some decades earlier to a highly-simplified and unrealistic model of the economy which was then starkly revealed in all its nakedness…..Steve Keen was one of the first economists to break ranks very publicly way back in 2001 and to set out an alternative - Debunking Economics – the naked emperor dethroned. This coincided with economics students in Paris objecting to the homogeneity of syllabi and reaching out to others – creating in the next 15 years a movement which has become global

This is a good presentation on the issues (from 2012) - and I am now reading an excellent little Penguin book The Econocracy – the perils of leaving economics to the experts by Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins (2017) from their experience of stirring things up on the Manchester University economics programme. The book’s sub-title says it all!
Dani Rodrik is one of the few economists with a global reputation who has bothered to give them support (Ha-Yoon Chang is another) and indeed Rodrik published an important book recently reviewing the state of economics - Economics Rules – the rights and the wrongs of the dismal science; (2016) which was nicely reviewed here. Clicking the title gives you the full text – and it seems a very good read

The Financial Times recently reviewed several other such books - so the situation is not beyond repair but we have to be realistic. Academic economists have invested a lifetime’s reputation and energy in offering the courses they do - and neither can nor will easily offer programmes to satisfy future student demands for relevance and pluralism….. chances are that the next cohort will be more pliable... 

The excerpt suggested that Steve Keen was one of the “first economists to break ranks in 2001” – in the sense of presenting a wholesale critique of the economics discipline. But Varoufakis’ Foundation of Economics – a beginner’s companion was published even earlier - in 1997. And his “Further Reading” section – a veritable model of a bibliography – includes critical books from the 1970s and one from the 1950s.

I know how boring economic writing is – but it is time we understood that commentators, business people and governments make the subject boring for a very good reason….It makes us apathetic. - and less inclined to challenge the system...

I was once, if briefly and somewhat under false pretences, an economics lecturer – but my financial illiteracy is almost criminal but not, sadly, at all unusual. Most of us seem to lack the patience to buckle down and take the time and discipline needed to understand the operation of the system of financial capitalism which now has us all in its thrall. We leave it to the "experts" and have thereby surrendered what is left to us of citizenship and political power.

What makes Varoufakis' various books such excellent reading is the sheer originality of his prose –showing a mind at work which is constantly active…...rejecting dead phrases, clichés and jargon… helping us see thlngs in a different light..... using narrative and stories to keep the readers’ interest alive…He's in total command of the english language - rather than, as so usual, it in control of him.....

You don’t expect to find good prose in the “Further Reading” section of a book, but just see what Varoufakis does with the task…… 

The main reason for writing this book was a lack of sources to which I could refer my students for a more wholesome diet than that offered by conventional textbooks. The problem with books and articles which treat their reader to the fascinating debates is that they are too hard for beginners; especially for today’s university environment which is more demanding on first year undergraduates’ time than once was the case. Thus in order to achieve maximum emphasis I will confine myself to a small number of suggestions for further reading. 

The one book you must read First, I must recommend Robert Heilbroner’s bewitching introduction to the evolution of economic ideas entitled The Wordly Philosophers (1953). If you are to read one book beyond the standard economics textbook (and perhaps the one you are holding), attempt this one; you will not regret it.

Textbooks The first economics textbook which set the scene for today’s multi-colour glossy door-stops was written by Paul Samuelson (first published in 1948). It is entitled “Economics” - and is the most famous text since the Second World War and, still, the most interesting (notwithstanding my overall displeasure with economics textbooks). All the textbooks have since attempted to emulate Samuelson and, as is always the case with imitators, they succeeded only partially. Those of you with a sense of textbook history will benefit from reading Samuelson’s mega-hit.

An economist’s ambition I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws—or crafts its advanced treatises — as long as I can write its textbooks.Paul Samuelson 

If you want something more contemporary, helpful on a day-to-day basis (especially for first year economics students) and with an appreciation of the limitations of economics and the importance of history and political debate, try the large (though not expensive) volume which was put together by the economists at the Open University. Being part of a distance-learning institution, the Open University team edited a book that students can read independently as opposed to a reference manual to be consulted after a lecture. Its title is Economics and Changing Economies (published by the Open University in association with Thomson Business Press in 1996). It contains chapters on everything that you are likely to encounter in your first (perhaps even your second) year as an undergraduate and each topic is treated sensitively and with a humility that is uncommon (unfortunately) amongst economics texts. If you want to improve your essay skills and dazzle your tutor with your command of particular topics, don’t miss this book.

If you wish for something smaller and somewhat simpler (e.g. if you are an interested general reader rather than a student worried about particular assignments), I suggest Robert Heilbroner and Lester Thurrow’s Economics Explained (Simon and Schuster, 1994). On the other hand, if you want a ‘cutting-edge’ neoclassical textbook, I find Robert Frank’s Microeconomics and Behavior (McGraw-Hill, 1993) to be the most (although still insufficiently) open-minded of the introductions to neoclassical thinking.

Unconventional textbooks. I will mention only two. For a holistic, open-minded and rather comprehensive approach to economics, I suggest Vicky Allsopp’s Understanding Economics (Routledge, 1995). Allsopp manages to remain well within the mainstream while reorganising the various topics in such a way as to make it easier for the beginner to see economic thinking as more than technical gymnastics. For instance, she offers her readers a chapter on ‘Law, custom and money’ which is a far better introduction to the concept of money (not an easy one!) than the standard chapters on money demand, money supply, assets, etc. which pollute most textbooks. Additionally Allsopp offers a comprehensive chapter on ‘Investment’, a much neglected yet crucial topic.T

The second suggestion here is one for those of you whose appetite was whetted by the glimpses of non-neoclassical economic theory in this book. If you wish to explore those ideas further, a good place to start is Malcolm Sawyer’s Introduction to Radical Economics (Macmillan, 1989). There you will find simple introductions to the Ricardian, Marxist, Neo-Keynesian and Neo-Austrian ideas mentioned in this book’s more critical chapters (primarily Chapters 6 and 7).

The road to paradise Let’s face it: economics is boring most of the time. Economists’ best efforts (of course I include myself in this sad category) are unlikely to offer excitement and reading pleasure for more than a few moments. To punctuate the boredom, I suggest that you move to the borderline between economics and the other social sciences. That is the way, if not to heaven, to less arid fields of thought.Looking at books I enjoyed as a student, one book whose effects I have tried to emulate here is Economics: An anti-text, edited by Francis Green and Peter Nore (Macmillan, 1977), a book devoted to countering the brainwashing of economics textbooks.

I also recall fondly another book  whose influence stays with me today: Ed Nell and Martin Hollis’s Rational Economic Man (Cambridge University Press, 1976). I remember it was hard-going in parts but lucid and simple, as well as very exciting, in other parts. Much of my Chapters 4 and 11 have been inspired by that book.
 Unfortunately time has left its mark on it and it will perhaps seem somewhat dated to a fresh pair of eyes. None the less it may still be a good idea to borrow a well-thumbed copy from a library for perusal. Since then Nell and Hollis have published other books which are more up to date. Nell’s Making Sense of a Changing Economy: Technology, markets and morals is an interesting read (Routledge, 1996). However, again with a view to narrowing down your ‘shopping list’, I want to urge you to read some of Hollis’ work. (If you could see and hear me I would be gesticulating very energetically in support of this recommendation!)
Although not an economist (Hollis is a philosopher), his writings pack great insight and inspiration for students of the economy. Have a look at his enticing (and easy-going) The Philosophy of Social Science: An introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1994).

And if you feel more adventurous and altruistic to your future self, tackle two more of his books: Reason in Action (1996) is a collection of articles on many philosophical issues central to economics (e.g. the free-rider problem) whereas The Cunning of Reason (1987) is a wonderful investigation on what it means for a social animal to be rational.
Be warned: these two books (both published by Cambridge University Press) are hard work for first year students and you are unlikely to plough through their entirely. Nevertheless even reading bits of them, and making a point of returning to them in the years to come, will fill you with joy and pride.