Managers take all

More than 60 years after I first started studying economics, I still find myself utterly confused about a subject I actually taught for a few years in 1968 until I realised my mistake. From time to time, posts share my confusion in the blog which has followed with interest the various attempts made in the new millennium to bring what is nothing else than a religious/metaphysical doctrine – kicking and screaming – into the modern world. Economics is abstract and boring for a reason – Economists simply don’t want you to know their dirty little secret; that it’s all constructed on sand…on a pile of debt (for which read, equally appropriately, another 4 letter word beginning with Sh) 

The proud Scottish tradition of Political Economy had been killed off only a few years after I left the University of Glasgow (proud home of Adam Smith) – to be replaced by the much more technocratic-sounding “Economic Science” which quickly threw over its flirtation with Keynesiasm and succumbed first to monetarism and then scientism. If only they had persevered with political economy, they would now belong to the new Brave Hearts who have recently hoisted once again the flag of Political Economy (such as Mark Blyth, Wolfgang Streeck, Yanis Varoufakis, Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson).

Such writers expose the fallacy of those who persevere with the nonsense that “the Market” gives us what Voltaire’s Candide more than 250 years ago satirically described the “best of all possible worlds”. Such writers like to set up 2 strawmen - “the market” and “the state” - with the former requiring a set of “heroic” assumptions such as “perfect competition” dependent on consumers having “perfect knowledge” and companies having free access to markets. In the real world, such conditions hardly ever exist. 

One thing which economists try to ignore is “power” – one of the main elements of the separate discipline of Political Economy. The can’t therefore fit “Monopolies” and “oligopolies” into their schema – which is a bit awkward as they are the basic reality in our globalised world – with innovative small companies increasingly swallowed up by multinationals owing allegiance only to shareholders of conglomerate Investment Funds interested only in short-term profit. The European Union still takes competition seriously – that was the point of its “Single Market” programme which was pushed so strongly (ironically by an acolyte of Margaret Thatcher). But, thanks to Bill Clinton and the Democrats, the United States stopped taking competition seriously some 30 years ago 

All this is by way of a preamble to an important book I’ve been reading these last couple of days - Winners Take All – the elite charade of changing the world by Anand Giridharadas (2018) and starts with a Leo Tolstoy quote which is a favourite of mine 

I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all means possible…except by getting off his back.

and goes on to argue that –

·       The image of the “market” is so powerful it has shaped our expectations of the state

·       The public sector now likes to pretend that it has “quasi-markets” which set bodies with public funding up against one another in mock competition

·       “Thought-leaders” receive great rewards from corporate leaders who want to hear positive stories of what can be done – not be cast down by the difficulties and problems presented by critical intellectuals

·       The tech sector now offers the promise of being able to solve problems which were previously seen as too difficult or impossible

·       Private companies are invited by the state to become involved in “Partnerships” which generally involve them pocketing profits and the state the sizeable losses

·       Global health and educational problems are increasingly the focus of significant philanthropic funding eg the Clinton Global Initiative

·       The key actors in such work are the managers of International Consultancies such as McKinsey

·       Who are looked to by both the public and private sector as saviours – with their “protocols” and smart advice

·       It was to McKinsey that Obama turned when he wanted to explore the future of democracy 

The book is a very easy read – from a journalist well-versed, I sensed, in the social sciences since he profiled very appropriately some of the books used for his argument eg “The Ideas Industry” by Daniel Drezler. And I liked the way he brought individuals in to illustrate the story – in the opening pages a young woman vacillating between the private or public sectors who chose McKinsey; in the middle a music student who went to live in Mongolia for 5 years, joined McKinsey and ultimately helped Soros set up his new Social Investment Fund; in the chapter on Philanthropy an older guy who dared to call out the hypocrisy of the rich; and, finally, Bill Clinton. 

When I think about change-agents, I’ve often wondered how we can distinguish the real deal from the fakes. But how do we ever know what’s in our hearts – and how we might change? Both the book’s sub-title and argument certainly made me think very seriously about this. As a middle-of-the-road sceptic and “mugwump”, I am myself at least potentially guilty of such charades. Also appropriately, the book includes this famous quotation from Lampedusa’s “The Leopard” which people often get wrong 

 “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change” (Falconeri)

Useful Reading

-       A thoughtful review from one of the book’s targets

-       and it seems to have hit home at the famous Wharton School of Management

-       this review briefly summarises each chapter and gives a good sense of the book

-       blog reviews are quite rare but can be quite deep – and this is a good example

-       The McKinsey Way; Ethan M Rasiel (1999) shows the nature of the beast

-       The McKinsey Mind; EM Rasiel and PN Friga (2002) reveals the dirty secrets

-       The LSE Book Review was very positive

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/14/winners-take-all-by-anand-giridharadas-review

Words

I do understand that it is a bit perverse of me to try to communicate the essence of effective writing when the majority of my readers have English as their second language - particularly when I return fairly often to the subject. It was, for example, just 3 years ago when I commended almost 60 writers for the quality of their writing – although at least a dozen of them were bilingual (eg Svetlana Alexievich, Oriana Fallacia, Masha Gessen, Sebastian Haffner, Arthur Koestler and Joseph Roth)

But these efforts simply flagged up my preferences – they didn’t try to identify the features that gave the writing its impact. And that’s what I now want to attempt – building on the comment in the last post that “impact” has something to do with not only the style but also the character of the writer. Generally, of course, we are told to separate the two when we are considering creativity - but I think this is impossible 

Let’s start with character – as I survey the various lists I’ve made, what comes through is the breadth of their curiousity and the independence of their thought – indeed their downright obstinacy. They read voraciously across intellectual (and often national) boundaries – and don’t suffer fools gladly.

On style, they generally use short sentences and are constantly on their guard against the clichés and metaphors which so easily take over our minds. We should be in charge of language – not the other way around. George Orwell is the master of this – as his widow put it in her preface to the 2^nd volume of “Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters”, he was – 

one of the most honest and individual writers of this century -- a man who forged a unique literary manner from the process of thinking aloud, who possessed an unerring gift for going straight to the point, and who elevated political writing to an art. 

The very first essay in that second volume is on “New words” which anticipates the Newspeak his 1984 made famous 

When you are asked "Why do you do, or not do, so and so?" you are invariably aware that your real reason will not go into words, even when you have no wish to conceal it; consequently you rationalize your conduct, more or less dishonestly. I don't know whether everyone would admit this, and it is a fact that some people seem unaware of being influenced by their inner life, or even of having any inner life. 

For anyone who is not a considerable artist (possibly for them too) the lumpishness of words results in constant falsification…. A writer falsifies himself both intentionally and unintentionally. Intentionally, because the accidental qualities of words constantly tempt and frighten him away from his true meaning. He gets an idea, begins trying to express it, and then, in the frightful mess of words that generally results, a pattern begins to form itself more or less accidentally. It is not by any means the pattern he wants, but it is at any rate not vulgar or disagreeable; it is "good art". He takes it, because "good art" is a more or less mysterious gift from heaven, and it seems a pity to waste it when it presents itself. Is not anyone with any degree of mental honesty conscious of telling lies all day long, both in talking and writing, simply because lies will fall into artistic shape when truth will not?

In practice everyone recognizes the inadequacy of language -- consider such expressions as "Words fail", "It wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it", etc.) 

No wonder TS Eliot (who didn’t like Orwell!) wrote (in “Burnt Norton”) – 

Words strain,

Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,

Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,

decay with imprecision, will not stay in place

You can read the entire poem here and later (in East Coker) a section I use a lot – 

So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years

Trying to learn to use words, and every attempt

Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure

Because one has only learnt to get the better of words

Yanis Varoufakis has clearly read his “Politics and the English language” essay from 1946 and I tried recently to understand why Varoufakis writes so well – 

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…

 Inconclusion

As usual, words (and thoughts) have distracted me from the intention behind this post – namely to try to identify the characteristics of “writing which makes an impact”. To demonstrate the difficulty of such an endeavour, let me share with you 60 Words to describe Writing or Speaking Styles ….. 

articulate – able to express your thoughts, arguments, and ideas clearly and effectively; writing or speech is clear and easy to understand

chatty – a chatty writing style is friendly and informal

circuitous – taking a long time to say what you really mean when you are talking or writing about something

clean – clean language or humour does not offend people, especially because it does not involve sex

conversational – a conversational style of writing or speaking is informal, like a private conversation

crisp – crisp speech or writing is clear and effective

declamatory – expressing feelings or opinions with great force

diffuse – using too many words and not easy to understand

discursive – including information that is not relevant to the main subject

disputatious - an inclination to argue

economical – an economical way of speaking or writing does not use more words than are necessary

elliptical – suggesting what you mean rather than saying or writing it clearly

eloquent – expressing what you mean using clear and effective language

emphatic – making your meaning very clear because you have very strong feelings about a situation or subject

epigrammatic – expressing something such as a feeling or idea in a short and clever or funny way

epistolary – relating to the writing of letters

euphemistic – euphemistic expressions are used for talking about unpleasant or embarrassing subjects without mentioning the things themselves

flowery – flowery language or writing uses many complicated words that are intended to make it more attractive

fluent – expressing yourself in a clear and confident way, without seeming to make an effort

formal – correct or conservative in style, and suitable for official or serious situations or occasions

gossipy – a gossipy letter is lively and full of news about the writer of the letter and about other people

grandiloquent – expressed in extremely formal language in order to impress people, and often sounding silly because of this

idiomatic – expressing things in a way that sounds natural

inarticulate – not able to express clearly what you want to say; not spoken or pronounced clearly

incoherent – unable to express yourself clearly

informal – used about language or behaviour that is suitable for using with friends but not in formal situations

journalistic – similar in style to journalism

learned – a learned piece of writing shows great knowledge about a subject, especially an academic subject

literary – involving books or the activity of writing, reading, or studying books; relating to the kind of words that are used only in stories or poems, and not in normal writing or speech

lyric – using words to express feelings in the way that a song would

lyrical – having the qualities of music

ornate – using unusual words and complicated sentences

orotund – containing extremely formal and complicated language intended to impress people

parenthetical – not directly connected with what you are saying or writing

pejorative – a pejorative word, phrase etc expresses criticism or a bad opinion of someone or something

picturesque – picturesque language is unusual and interesting

pithy – a pithy statement or piece of writing is short and very effective

poetic – expressing ideas in a very sensitive way and with great beauty or imagination

polemical – using or supported by strong arguments

ponderous – ponderous writing or speech is serious and boring

portentous – trying to seem very serious and important, in order to impress people

prolix – using too many words and therefore boring

punchy – a punchy piece of writing such as a speech, report, or slogan is one that has a strong effect because it uses clear simple language and not many words

rambling – a rambling speech or piece of writing is long and confusing

readable – writing that is readable is clear and able to be read

rhetorical – relating to a style of speaking or writing that is effective or intended to influence people; written or spoken in a way that is impressive but is not honest

rhetorically – in a way that expects or wants no answer; using or relating to rhetoric

rough – a rough drawing or piece of writing is not completely finished

roundly– in a strong and clear way

sententious – expressing opinions about right and wrong behaviour in a way that is intended to impress people

sesquipedalian – using a lot of long words that most people do not understand

Shakespearean – using words in the way that is typical of Shakespeare’s writing

stylistic – relating to ways of creating effects, especially in language and literature

succinct – expressed in a very short but clear way

turgid – using language in a way that is complicated and difficult to understand

unprintable – used for describing writing or words that you think are offensive

vague – someone who is vague does not clearly or fully explain something

verbose – using more words than necessary, and therefore long and boring

well-turned – a well-turned phrase is one that is expressed well

wordy – using more words than are necessary, especially long or formal words

Fighting Fatalism

Hayek was bad enough – with his belief that markets would solve any problem. But the complexity theorists seem to have driven the last nail into the coffin of Free Will. John Urry was a much-lamented UK sociologist with a superb article here describing and analysing complexity theory about which he also wrote a book (“Global Complexity” 2005) 

My generation believed three things which kept its sanity –

-       Governments had effective machinery and tools at its disposal to deal with most problems

-       Political parties reflected public feelings and had some influence over governments formed from its leading members

-       Enough fuss and pressure from society – whether media, public opinion, voluntary organisations or trade unions – would get results

We no longer believe any of these things – indeed anyone who offers such judgements is seen as old-fashioned if not eccentric…..

A combination of globalisation, privatisation and neoliberalism has sucked the lifeblood not only from governments but from political parties – leaving social movements to perform as a colourful, pantomime distraction.

Fortunately, however, there are still a few voices left – bravely articulating detailed messages which point to a better way. People like Yanis Varoufakis and George Monbiot and, for those prepared to do some really serious reading, authors such as Mariana Mazzucato  - with her latest “Mission Economy – a moonshot guide to changing capitalism” to which the great blog Crooked Timber is devoting a discussion series from which I’ve taken an extract - 

She starts from the view that at present both capitalism and governments are dysfunctional. In Chapter 2 she identifies the four sources of the problems of capitalism as (1) the short-termism of the financial sector (including the deeply problematic issue that, given the role of financial institutions, its profits are privatized but its losses are socialized, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis); (2) the financialization of business; (3) climate emergency and (4) slow or absent governments. 

In Chapter 3, Mazzucato points at New Public Management theory as the culprit for the widespread myth that failures of the public sector are more serious than failures of the private sector, which has been used to justify the massive increase in privatizations and outsourcing. And this, Mazzucato argues, has led to a reduction of the capabilities in the public sector, which in turn makes it harder to change weak or bad policies. The main problem with the government right now is not its size, but rather that its capacities, skills and expertise have been diminished, which has also demoralized public servants.

What we need instead, is ‘Moonshot thinking’, which entails that governments should have an ambition that is so inspiring and concrete, that it motivates all to contribute to reaching that goal; this is what Mazzucato calls ‘a public purpose’ – the most essential thing a government should have, and which will motivate its partnership with business. Innovation and commercial success will happen along the way. 

Chapter 4 describes the Apollo program in the 1960s as an example of what governments can accomplish if they have a clear mission that all are contributing to. At that time, the mission was “bring a man to the moon and safely back to earth” – in the historical context of the Cold War (not an unimportant detail, perhaps!). The Apollo program was driven by mission-oriented innovation, full with great risks and many failures from which lessons were learnt. At the early stages, poor communication within NASA seemed its weakest point; apparently this problem was addressed so successfully that the dynamic communications set-up within NASA was later copied by businesses. There were many other problems with the Apollo program, and Mazzucato argues that solutions were found by organizations and people willing to experiment, rather than picking supposedly good solutions in advance. Talented and hardworking people, risk taking and adapting, are key aspects of a successful mission. 

Chapter 5 explains how mission-oriented thinking looks like by applying it to several missions for our times: the Sustainable Development Goals, the American and European Green New Deals, accessible health, and narrowing the digital divide. In all of these missions, the aim is to catalyze collaboration between many different sectors, and to change our view of the government as regulating and correcting markets and being a lender of last resort to being the creator and shaper of markets, and an investor of first resort willing to take the high risks that are needed for long-term thinking, and who aims to crowd in private funding and collaborations. 

Chapter 6 sketches how the political economy of this capitalism-with-a-public-purpose would look like. Mazzucato writes that there are 7 pillars that a political economy that can guide a mission-oriented approach should have:

(1) a new approach to value;

(2) markets as being co-created and shaped by the government;

(3) organizations that have the capabilities to co-create for the public purpose, including taking risks, experimenting and learning;

(4) an approach to finance that does not start by asking what the budget is, but by “what needs to be done” and as a derivative question asks how to pay for it;

(5) fighting inequality not only be redistribution but first of all by predistribution;

(6) reimagine the relation between government and businesses as a partnership around a common goal; and

(7) new forms of participation, debate, discussion and consensus-building.

Three other relevant books are -

- Bill Mitchell’s Reclaiming the State – a progressive vision of sovereignty in a post neo-liberal world (2017) is from a leftist Australian economist. 

- Futures of Socialism – the COVID pandemic and post-Corbyn Era; ed Grace Blakely (2020) is a little book which contains short pieces from those sympathetic to the direction Corbyn was trying to take the Labour party.

- The Return of the State – restructuring Britain for the Common Good Ed P Allen et al (2021)

A book calling for a rethink on globalisation and the place of financial capital – with contributions from people such as Robert Skidelsky, Ann Pettifor and Stewart Lansley – questioning the role of financial capital.

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii129/articles/javier-moreno-zacares-euphoria-of-the-rentier

The 2020 posts …..so far

The blog marked its 1,500^th post at the beginning of the month – over eleven years. That’s almost 3 posts a week. To celebrate I’ve uploaded the posts for 2020 (86 so far) into a little E-book of some 200 pages which you can find here

I realise this may be a bit daunting for you – so here is the first instalment of a little series I’m offering to entice you into the riches….. I use that word only half-mockingly since the key feature this blog offers is the depth of the hyperlinks it offers into articles and books on important subjects…. It takes the form of one of the tables which have become one of the blog’s distinguishing features – with

-      the first column being the title of a post - to access, just click

-      the second column, trying to identify the event which was the catalyst to the post

-      the final column ,the basic message I would like to think the post should leave with the reader  

The E-book itself starts with an explanation first of the benefits blogging offers; then of why I, in particular, continue to find it a useful self-discipline for almost every morning; and finally why, for the past year, the blog operates with this particular title….. 

The Posts so Far in 2020…..

Title	What sparked it off	The “takeaway” or basic message
To whom it may concern - the 2019 posts	Pride in my posts of the previous year	Tables have become an important self-discipline
Poetry? Maybe	An Adrian Mitchell poem	“Most people ignore most poetry - Because - Most poetry ignores most people”
The Beast destroying the World	Discovering that posts about capitalism were the 2019 posts‘ second favourite topic	Most interesting narratives are from Collier, Hirschmann, Mander, Varoufakis
The Beast – part II	And that few economists could properly explain the global financial crash	My “Dispatches to the Next Generation” identifies more than 200 key books and then whittles that down to 50 or so key texts
Is public administration really all that sexy?	exploring why my fixation about this issue is actually increasing	Events in 2020 have demonstrated how much we have neglected the importance of “the state” in the past 30 years
57 Varieties of Capitalism	The matrix that resulted from an  “ideological triangulation” of a dozen academic disciplines	We need to be more aware of the ideological lens authors are using (often without their own appreciation)
Postmodernism – what is it and does it have a future?	The further thoughts that led me into	It’s been in the air most of us still alive have breathed; we don’t really think about it – nor care…..
My Best Reads of 2019	A useful January exercise	We like to feel, flick and smell the pages of real books
The perils of leaving economics to experts	A great little book called “The Econocracy” with this warning as a sub-title	Economics is a religion – and needs more pluralism and sceptics
The end of a doomed relationship	The leaving of the EU on Jan 31st – Brexit being this blog’s most frequent topic during 2019	To my horror I find that a “Daily Telegraph” article has read my thoughts
Why the British Masochists did what they did	A Dutch friend’s farewell letter	I didn’t do justice to the LEXIT arguments
Does the EU still warrant the support of progressives?	An episode of “The Crown” takes me back to the 1960s and suspicions about a British PM being a Moscow mole	The continuing post-mortem on the British suicide mission
Neutralising Democracy	A superb satire on the british system	Anthony Jay put it all so well in 1989
In Case You Missed it	Frustration with Dropbox	See the E-books listed in the top-right corner of the blog
Links I liked	many significant hyperlinks never see the light of day	I share my morning routines

 

Money Talks - why we need a new Vocabulary of social change

Exactly one hundred years ago. Keynes wrote a famous paragraph about globalisation which started -

The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep.

Two world wars checked capitalism's dynamism - although the post-war period enjoyed what the French have called "the glorious 30 years". A new phase, however, came into play in 1971 with Nixon's unilateral decision to take the US out of the 1944 Bretton Woods system of global finance. The UK's Big Bang liberalisation of banking and the EU's Single Market 15 years later; and the establishment in 1995 of the World Trade Organisation were further boosts to a new phase of global financialisation.
These past 40 years of increasingly instantaneous financial flows have made a mockery of both democracy and of sovereignty. It is capital markets which now decide the shape and scope of state policy-making - and which have destroyed the model of social democracy. 
When countries borrow, it is the money markets who make the judgements about the risks and therefore the range of interest rates payable.

Whatever the rhetoric of party manifestos, it is money - not politics - which now talks and which should make us take more seriously the question posed more than a decade ago by the veteran US political scientist SM Wolin in Democracy Incorporated – managed democracy and the spectre of inverted totalitarianism (2008) - namely whether capitalism and democracy can continue to coexist. Robert Kuttner's Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? (2018) clearly doubts it

The ideology of "neoliberalism" may well be a useful one for academics but is disastrous as an explanatory tool for social activists - let alone one likely to help persuade others. We do therefore desperately need a proper vocabulary for persuasive conversations with others about the nature of the system which is grinding us asunder. I've taken in recent blogposts to refer to it, variously, as "The Beast" or the Elephant - although Yanis Varoufakis's "Minotaur" is probably the best metaphor.
When I was born, capitalism was something which stood or fell according to its ability to produce real things - now it is more of a psychic process so well described in Adam Curtis' documentaries. The 2011 book Monoculture - how one story is changing everything is one of the few good reads about all this.

Skidelsky's "Money and Government", which was the positive focus of the last post, is an important book in its (sadly all too rare) attempt to make the world of money comprehensible to the average citizen. But it has, these past few weeks, been lying unread in my car - I just didn't have the patience to wade through the economic history it offers.
Something called "Modern Monetary Theory" has suddenly become flavour of the month in leftist circles thanks apparently to one of Bernie Saunders' advisers, one Stephanie Kelton whose book The Deficit Myth  has been attracting feverish reviews - although Michael Roberts, the Marxist economist, needs some convincing 
Such is the level of interest in this new body of work that Real Economics devoted an entire issue to the subject which is well worth reading

update; last year saw the publication of this book which argues against the prevailing view that capitalism is destroying democracy – balancing the 2013 book Managing Democracy; managing dissent – capitalism, democracy and organising consensus.