The Beast Destroying the World

 “Capitalism”…I started, but the barman hopped out of a pipkin

“Capitalism”, he countered…”That’s a flat and frothless word

I’m a good Labour man, but if I mentioned capitalism

My clientele would chew off their own ears

And spit them down the barmaid’s publicised cleavage”

“All right” I obliged “Don’t call it capitalism

Let’s call it Mattiboko the Mighty

……..

The poem finishes…

This was my fearless statement

“The Horror World can only be changed by the destruction of

Mattiboko the Mighty,

The Massimataxis Incoporated Supplement

And Gumbo Jumbo the Homely Obblestrog Spectacular”

Audience Reaction was quite encouraging

Adrian Mitchell “Come on Everybody Poems” 1953-2008

 Almost a quarter of my blogposts last year wrestled with various aspects of the economic system which now looks set to destroy the planet.

In my youth, the nuclear threat was what kept us awake at night – and that was particularly the case for those of us who lived a mere couple of kilometres from the US nuclear submarine base on the Clyde. Many thought that the collapse of the Berlin Wall had ended such existential fear - but global warming has now taken its place.

The year started with a couple of posts about important books with “capitalism“ in their title before trying to make amends for the failure of the blog to dealt properly with the ecological issue.

It was, however, Paul Collier’s “The Future of Capitalism – facing the new anxieties” which really got me scribbling last year – initially with a series of posts which reminded me that I had still not managed to complete a book which has occupying me for several years.

Writing a book about a subject you don’t understand is an activity I’ve recommended for everyone to help dispel the confusions we all have (if we’re honest enough)…More challenging is when the topic proves to be more amorphous - and changes shape as you work on it. Such has been my experience with text I started almost 20 years ago – long before the financial crash of 2008…It started with a critique that went as follows –

- Consumerism is killing the planet – and making people miserable.

- The poor are getting poorer

- political culture is getting ever more centralised (notwithstanding Scottish devolution).

- Social democrats like New Labour have sold the state to corporate interests.

- don’t blame individuals such as Tony Blair – it’s in the nature of modern politics. Note the political corruption in Italy, Belgium, Germany, France and even Britain.

- The EU is selfish and lacks vision

The paper then looked at the organisations and people I admired; what they were achieving; where they seemed to be failing and why; and went on to raise the question of how someone of my age, experience and resources might better contribute to society.

Many, of course, will scorn such an aspiration – seeing it as typical of a western “do-gooder”…

I readily admit my natural inclination to intervene in social processes (ie my “activist” mode) and that a lot of the recent writing on “chaos theory” and even “systems theory” seems to me to run the risk of encouraging fatalism – one of the four world views Mary Douglas introduced us to and which Chris Hood’s The Art of the State (1999) analyses so brilliantly

The world is getting increasingly complex these days – so it’s hardly surprising that we increasingly hear the argument for “leaving well alone” (or “laisser-faire” as it used to be called). But we do need to look carefully at who makes - and indeed funds - such arguments. They are the right-wing US Foundations funded by such billionaires as the Koch brothers..

One of my favourite writers - AO Hirschmann – actually devoted an entire book (”The Rhetoric of Reaction”; 1991) to examining three arguments conservative writers use for dismissing the hopes of social reformers:

- The futility thesis argues that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to “make a dent.”

- the perversity thesis holds that any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.

- the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.

Have a look at any argument against a proposed reform - you will find it a variant of these three. But such fatalism offends my sense of what we used to call “free will” (and now “agency theory”). Powerful people exist – whether in corporations, international agencies or governments – who can and do influence events. Our job as citizens is to watch them carefully and protest when we can..

In the 1930s it was not difficult to identify the enemy…Today the enemy is a more voracious and complex system which we variously call “globalisation” or “neoliberalism” and only more recently “capitalism” - whose disastrous consequences the activists of Porto Allegro had exposed……although it took the crash of 2008 to prove the point…

Yanis Varoufakis used the highly appropriate term “the Global Minotaur” for his brilliant 2011 story of how surplus capital had sought its rewards – with all the destructiveness that Joseph Schumpeter had first described in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) – but minus the “creativity”

The Minotaur not only survived but managed the amazing trick of transferring bank losses onto state exchequers and bringing on austerity and further vilification of the state…It was the poisoning of the state I first noticed – thanks to George Monbiot’s The Captive State – the corporate takeover of Britain (2000) and started to blog about in 2009. But within a few years such a critique of the political class had become commonplace.

So, to tempt you into flicking through “To Whom it may Concern” (for which just click the title in the list at the top-right corner of the blog masthead) here is a table with a selection of relevant posts with brief explanations…

Selected Posts about the Beast

Post	What sparked it off	Why it’s worth reading
How will it all end?	Wolfgang Streeck’s “The End of Capitalism?”	Has hyperlinks which cut to the core of the discussion
Why the reluctance to seek consensus?	“Club of Rome” report “Come on! Capitalism”	It’s a definitive report and my post tries to summarise other key texts about the turning point the world seems to have reached
What is wrong with us?	An article in NYRB about the ecological disaster we face	Exhaustive reading list
Populist – and proud of it!	Pelican book sparks off an Old Labourist reflections	The post puts the present concerns in an historical context
The Global Minotaur	Finding an internet version of a political economy book I had read in 2012	The book is one of the best explanations of the financial crash… but now reread as if for the first time
A Better Economics	Finding an internet version of a little-known but superbly-written economics textbook	May have been produced 21 years ago but clearly written by someone very sensitive to readers’ needs
The Future of Capitalism – facing the new anxieties”	Paul Collier’s new book	Explains why the book was so good it inspired 5 posts
Communitarianism, anyone?	Which failed to explore this underlying theme	An agenda is sketched out
Can the genie be put back on the bottle?	Are we no longer masters of our fate?	Some good reviews are summarised
The future of capitalism part IV	Acknowledgements page reminds me how important friends are to drafting process	As well as some critiques
The Beast needs fixed! Part V		A final assessment of Collier – with some suggestions for further reading

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)

What's in a Name??

 “Capitalism”…I started, but the barman hopped out of a pipkin

“Capitalism”, he countered…”That’s a flat and frothless word

I’m a good Labour man, but if I mentioned capitalism

My clientele would chew off their own ears

And spit them down the barmaid’s publicised cleavage”

“All right” I obliged “Don’t call it capitalism

Let’s call it Mattiboko the Mighty

……..

The poem finishes…

This was my fearless statement

“The Horror World can only be changed by the destruction of

Mattiboko the Mighty,

The Massimataxis Incoporated Supplement

And Gumbo Jumbo the Homely Obblestrog Spectacular”

Audience Reaction was quite encouraging

Adrian Mitchell “Come on Everybody Poems” 1953-2008

Some time ago I suggested that all references to words ending in “ism” or “ist” should be banned in discussions – on the basis that they had, these days, become mere insults and likely, as a result, to polarise rather than assist conversation.

It was a serious point I was making – brought home in the current American Democratic party debates for the Presidential nomination. One article suggests that Saunders, to distinguish himself from Warren, needs to clearly name his enemy….capitalism – although it’s not so long ago that Republicans were advised to stop using that particular term.

The Financial Crash of 2008 is still with us and has certainly made it easier to use the word (capitalism) which had been very much celebrated until the new millennium when it started to acquire its current negative connotation

In my youth, I was a Young Socialist ( a member of the Labour party’s youth wing) – but it was not a term I used of myself. I was a “social democrat”…a “Labourite” and very much opposed to the “Hard Left” on the fringes of the party who were always proud to label themselves “socialist”. Of course, if forced to choose between the two extremes, I would have to plump for “socialist” but was happy to occupy the middle ground – even if it meant accusations of being a “mugwump”

I’m currently trying to find a decent readable book to recommend to my readers about the shape of the “better system” we need to replace the offensive thing which currently rules our lives…..and realise how difficult it is to find a term for that “thing”. Paul Collier’s “Future of Capitalism” is one of the contenders – to which I devoted a series of posts last month. He’s very much a pragmatist; is happy to use the “C” word in his title but rarely (if at all) uses the “S” word.

Another contender is Jerry Mander’s The Capitalism Papers – Fatal Flaws of an Obsolete System (2012) which I am now rereading for purposes of comparison (As you can also since the book can be read in full by tapping the title).

His opening chapter (pp8/9) tells the story of a friend who said to him “I hope you’re not going to use the “C” word!” which inspired me to this post a few years ago.

Mander goes on to make the important distinction between “Big Capitalism” (the multinationals) and small and medium-sized business – what others (like Geoff Mulgan) call “bad” and Good” Capitalism

I suddenly remembered that the famous playwright GB Shaw had written a book called The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism almost a hundred years ago – and wondered if it might tell me something.

I should warn you that, far from being a short, punchy pamphlet, it runs to more than 500 pages and that its contents sheet alone - normally 2 pages at most – runs to 33 pages. This because of the charming habit of giving the reader a synopsis of each chapter – and there are no fewer than 84 of them!

A modern journalist, in a mercifully short article, suggests some parallels with the post-crash world

But I want to persevere with my question – why do we have so much difficulty finding a word to describe a more sensible and acceptable system than the one which has had us by the throat for so long????

It’s a silly question I know – since the obvious term (“socialism”) has been maligned by the cleverest marketing of the corporate elites..…and that those who continue to use the term do so almost as a virility symbol….

The key question, therefore, is what term should be used to attract the support not only of the activists but of the huge numbers of others who are, very reluctantly, supporting the populist parties???  

Well certainly not “The Third Way” – nor “Diem25”!!

It’s interesting that one of the American websites trying to develop an alternative is called The Next System……..

Paul Mason is by no means the only person who has taken to using the phrase “post-capitalism” but the phrase is no more than a gentle indication we are in a transition phase – it says nothing about where we SHOULD be going….

And few people realise that it was the father of management Peter Drucker who first wrote (in 1993) about The Post-Capitalist Society. I’ve just discovered the full book on the internet – so will have to refresh my memory on its contents but it certainly isn’t about socialism!

Not in front of the children!

If ever there was a subject calculated to divide opinions and families in europe, it is immigration. It is not one which this blog often covers – although the political fall-out over Brexit saw me reading at the end of last year (and commenting about) both The Strange Death of Europe – immigration, identity, Islam by Douglas Murray (2017); and The Road to Somewhere – the new tribes shaping British politics; by David Goodhart (2017).

And, in anticipating the Brexit vote in 2016, I did spell out why immigration was the only issue in the referendum.

It was, however, the horrific images in 2015 of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, scaling the fences and marching to Germany which brought home to most people like myself the scale of the global exodus. But I readily confess that I thereafter ignored the issue – although I was well aware that prevailing liberal (for which read economists’) opinion dismissed people’s fears.

It was therefore only this week that I discovered that there was at least one writer who had – as long ago as 2013 - demonstrated in his forensic examination of the issue the even-handedness you expect of a real professional. And that is Paul Collier whose Exodus – immigration and multiculturalism in the 21^st century (2013) tells us on its very first page that his own grandfather had migrated from a German village a hundred years earlier.

You  would therefore expect Sir Paul (for he was knighted a few years back) to be one of the globalists very much in favour of migration.

But far from it – his decades of working in Africa as a development economist have made him painfully aware not merely of the increasing attractions of rich European cities to poor people but of the social costs involved in such upheavals - for both host societies and those left behind.
His “Exodus” is a painstaking attempt to separate out various arguments – social and economic – and to explore the dynamics of the relevant “stocks” and “flows” and is essential reading for those who would dare to venture into the policy debate.
He looks at the migrant (both skilled and unskilled); at the costs and benefits incurred by the society he leaves; and at the costs and benefits to the host society in a variety of scenarios. 
One interesting feature of his analysis is the focus on the diapora - and the rate at which immigrants are “absorbed” or socialised into the host society….easier in America than in Europe.

The book was a change of focus for him – trying to understand the impact of immigration on a society like the UK and bringing a sensibility unfortunately all too rare amongst economists. 

When a year or so later he received an invitation to help Lebanon brainstorm about how it should deal with the increasing pressures of refugees from surrounding countries, he agreed only because the colleague who accompanied him was a refugee expert – the result is as strong a critique as you will find of how countries have dealt with the refugee crisis…Refuge – transforming a broken refugee system; Betts and Collier (2018)

Further Reading

http://www.ceemr.uw.edu.pl/vol-3-no-1-june-2014/book-reviews/paul-collier-2013-exodus-immigration-and-multiculturalism-21st

https://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2013/11/new-exodus

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-dream-review-and-authors-response/

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation

Changing the Beast – being part V of a series

In certain circles, to be accused of trying to reform – rather than transform – capitalism has long been one of the gravest criticisms. Not only this accusation but the very distinction has, however, always seemed a bit ridiculous. What would “transformation” actually mean? And who on earth could be attracted to the notion of wholescale nationalisation and associated bureaucratic power – to say nothing of even worse scenarios?? 

Temperamentally, I grant you, I’ve always been an incrementalist – rather than a revolutionary – influenced first by Tony Crosland’s 1956 revisionist “The Future of Socialism”; then, at University, by Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” and, in the early 80s, by Charles Lindblom – who got us all to respect incrementalism.
  
Although Margaret Thatcher kept assering that capitalism was the only way – or, in her own words, “there is No Alternative”, a mantra which soon attracted the acronym TINA – we have, since the end of the Cold War, become familiar with the “Varieties of capitalism” literature. Eased into it by Michel Albert, with later work by the likes of Crouch, Hall and Soskice being much more academic and, often, impenetrable

By the turn of the millennium the message seemed to be that Capitalism takes various forms; is constantly changing; and will always be with us. But increasingly, people were wondering whether it was not out of control. Pages 57-66 of my Dispatches to the Next Generation plot the increasing dystoptic aspect of book titles

But a few years back, something changed. It wasn’t the global crisis in itself but rather the combination of two things – first the suggestion that the entire engine of the system (profitability)was reaching vanishing point; and, second, a sudden realisation that robotization was a serious threat to even middle-class jobs.

Now the titles talk of the new phenomenon of “post-capitalism” 

Paul Collier’s book – “The Future of Capitalism – our present anxieties” to which I have devoted 4 posts – touches only very briefly on the second of the changes. But I recommend the book for its rare moral – rather than technocratic - tone and for it being the first book I can remember which takes as its starting point the concerns of ordinary people and tries to identify practical policies which might actually deal with issues such as the decline in social trust

Essential follow-up reading

I realise the previous reading list was too long. The following are they key bits of writing I would recommend for those who want to know more

Why the third way failed – economics, morality and the origins of the “big society”; Bill Jordan (2010) is a very thoughtful treatment of the experience…..(google sample only)..reviewed here

Revisiting Associative Democracy; ed Westall (2011). A short, overdue assessment of the relevance of Paul Hirst’s ideas - more than a decade after his death

Associationalism for 150 years – and still alive and well in Denmark; Kaspersen (2002)

Communitarianism Revisited; Amitai Etzioni (2015) The father of the modern movement revisits the issues

Those curious about the “Varieties of Capitalism” literature and able and willing to subject themselves to the torture of academic writing can skim one of the following..

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db5f/97bbe6f769bdf8ca138a89bd090f35e3a39d.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phall/VofCIntro.pdf

http://web.unideb.hu/jkapas/pdf/Kapas_varieties%20of%20capitalism.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328807093_Rhine-and_Anglo_Saxon_Capitalist_Models_and_the_1960-1993_Automotive_Industry_in_Germany_and_the_United_States/link/5be427cc92851c6b27af5c67/download

https://jeremygilbertwriting.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/psychedelic-socialism.pdf

The Future of Capitalism - IV

“Acknowledgements” are normally the least-read section of any book – into which are pored often embarrassingly-excessive expression of thankful debts. Indeed if the book is American, the section will read like an Oscar speech.

But Paul Collier’s “Acknowledgements” (unusually in the end-section) made me think about the whole issue of who an author thinks (s)he is writing for – and how that affects the style and content of a book

He explains that, having started with a review of some books, he realised that what was really needed was

“a synthesis of moral philosophy, political economics, finance, economic geography, social psychology and social policy”   

and that he then proceeded to identify and work with a small “brains trust” of individuals in these various fields he was able to find within the enclaves of Oxford University

We imagine that an author is writing for us – if not personally, that he has a mental picture  of the sort of person likely to pick the book up…But Collier reveals here that the people whose opinion he sought and  listened to were a small group of specific individuals. This perhaps explains a couple of things - one of which I only noticed when I went back to reread the book. First, as I had signalled last week, I found it curious that he failed to acknowledge the range of others who have explored similar themes – from GDH Cole, through Paul Hirst to the Third Way and beyond. I’m sure Collier is familiar with those strands but perhaps not the specialists he consulted….

It’s rare for me to return to a book for a second, closer reading within a month of the first read. But it’s perhaps something I should do more often since, this time around, I found myself scribbling quite a few question marks and remarks against sections that I simply couldn’t understand. I had the feeling, quite frankly, that one of the experts on his Brain’s Trust had advised him to include something which he didn’t quite feel he could explain properly….

And, as several of the reviewers have noticed, there were too many sections which aere too scrappy and need a lot more thought….particularly in Part II in the chapters on the “ethical company, family and world”

Future of Capitalism - Useful References and follow-up reading

The wide ranging nature of Collier’s book threw up an unusually wide assortment of papers and blogs….

Branko Milanovic honoured it with two separate posts – the first suggesting that it smacked of “nostalgia for a past that never was”; the second exploring what he has to say about healthy families, organisations and worlds

The radical American economist James K Galbraith (son of JF) reviews it along with a new book from Joseph Stiglitz and a forthcoming one from Branko Milanovic

The author of “TheThird Pillar” can be heard discussing his book in transcript and on podcast

The Denmark Lesson; short piece commenting on Collier’s Danish comments

Why the third way failed – economics, morality and the origins of the “big society”; Bill Jordan (2010) is a very thoughtful treatment of the experience…..reviewed here

Revisiting Associative Democracy; ed Westall (2011). An overdue assessment of the relevance of Paul Hirst’s ideas more than a decade after his death

Associationalism for 150 years – and still alive and well in Denmark; Kaspersen (2002)

Beyond the Third Way (Geyer 2001)

Can Democracies tackle illiberal and “inward-looking” drives?; Daniel Danaiu (Romanian Jounral of European Affairs June 2019) A broad-ranging overview of recent trends and writing by an ex-Governor of the Romanian National Bank

The Fix – how nations survive and thrive in a world in decline; Jonathan Tepperman (2016) one of the positive analyses selected by Collier

There’s a useful discussion here on how the concept of meritocracy has become obsolete…

Can the genie be put back in the bottle? part III of the discussion of Collier's Future of Capitalism

Half-way through writing this post I discovered that the great Branko Milanovic was also these days thinking and writing about Paul Collier’s “The Future of Capitalism” but beat me by a day!

And another book has appeared suggesting that markets and the state (alone or combined) are not sufficient to deal with our social needs – by an ex-Governor of the Bank of India. It is The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave Community Behind; Raghuram G. Rajan (2019) the main thrust of which can be found in this article,

To someone with my background, this critique is an obvious one. Indeed its relative rarity reflects the grip which technocrats have developed on our minds these past few decades.  

Our collective memories have become so short these days, people need to be reminded of the “Big Society” (Cameron 2010) and “The Third Way” (Blair 1997) both of which were doomed to failure by virtue of their elitist support and origins - although the “Third Way” was more philosophically grounded by the writings of Anthony Giddens. It was also less focused on Britain – with support from not only Bill Clinton but also Gerhard Schroeder (as witness this 1998 manifesto)

Why the third way failed – economics, morality and the origins of the “big society”; Bill Jordan (2010) is a very thoughtful treatment of the experience…..

The last post reminded us all that the discussion about the respective roles of state and market goes back at least a hundred years (and was evident in deeds if not words in the late 19^th century as both the UK and Germany started to respond to working class pressures); and suggested that there were two ways we could look at what might be called the “communitarian” option – as a set of policies and beliefs; or as an historical settlement reflecting specific conditions.

My suggestion of “stress tests” for what is obviously a set of highly sensible propositions was, I appreciate, a bit opaque. In phrasing it in this manner, I was conscious of the charge which the famous Angus Deaton had already made of Collier’s and Rajan’s books – that the “genie (in this case of “meritocracy”) could not be put back in the bottle”… meaning exactly what?? It’s odd that he just leaves the (obvious) question dangling at the end of his comments..

Does he perhaps mean that we have as a society experienced certain new things we will not readily give up? If so, what things?

Or has something contaminated the appreciation we had previously for certain values and behaviour? If so, what exactly is this contaminant of “meritocracy”? Michael Young wrote his famous “Rise of Meritocracy” as a satire in 1958 - its full title is actually The Rise of Meritocracy 1870-2033 – an essay on education and equality).

Is Angus Deaton really saying that human nature has changed so dramatically since 1970 or so that we no longer have the capacity to choose our own future? Whatever happened to “free will”?

It is understandable that Etzioni was unable to persuade his fellow north Americans to adopt “communitarianism” in the 1990s – in “the land of the free” its emphasis on social responsibilities perhaps smacks too much of the country’s early Puritan settlers – the decline of whose spirit I discussed last week - and of the contemporary Amash sect

I sense a lot of historical whitewashing going on in these exchanges. Paul Collier is quite open about his contempt for leftist writing (and seems particularly hostile to Wolfgang Streeck, a favourite of mine) – which explains the absence of some obvious names from the index to his book.And the “Third Way” scribblers are also absent (despite their centralist position) presumably because they have been guilty of ideological sloganizing….
But why is Paul Hirst and his associationalism missing from the book  - despite a recent celebration of his work? Perhaps the publisher is too left-wing? Or the phrase “associative democracy” too narrow for the scope of Collier’s book? Such excisions from the history book don’t do anyone any favours…

Collier refers to a talk he was invited to give to the Danish social democrats in 2017 where he met the new leader whom he recently praised in this article – which also suggests their party as a good example of the sort of pragmatism which he considers European social democracy needs these days - although a lot of us thought that New Labour's emphasis on "triangulation" and "evidence-based" approach was as pragmatic as you get......
 Remarkably, my googling had just unearthed this fascinating history of the development over a 150 year period of “Associationalism” in Denmark

My point therefore about “stress tests” is that clearly some countries are more disposed to communal ideas than others. Take, for example, my own country – Scotland. We may be part of o United “Kingdom” but the “1707 settlement” expressly retained our educational and religious freedoms in which schooling, for example, has always been more open; one of the most famous books about this bears the title “The Democratic Intellect”. And we have also been more open to ideas of support for community endeavour – with community planning and social enterprise being amongst the central planks of the Scottish government for the past 20 years.

Indeed there is an argument that it is the smaller countries who are most able to offer the sort of support for civilised ideas of the healthy family, organisation and society which Collier has made the core of his book.