New books in 2012 – part 3

Before the New Year I wrote here and here about some forthcoming books to look forward to. Here is a round-up of a few I missed, in no special order.

[amazon_link id=”1846684293″ target=”_blank” ]Why Nations Fail[/amazon_link] by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (development or rather its absence)

[amazon_image id=”1846684293″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”1846556023″ target=”_blank” ]Pity the Billionaire[/amazon_link] by Thomas Frank (US politics – I enjoyed his earlier [amazon_link id=”080507774X” target=”_blank” ]What’s the Matter with Kansas?[/amazon_link])

[amazon_link id=”0571234607″ target=”_blank” ]Capital [/amazon_link]by John Lanchester (a novel from the author of the brilliant [amazon_link id=”014104571X” target=”_blank” ]Whoops[/amazon_link] on the crisis)

[amazon_link id=”0374203032″ target=”_blank” ]What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets[/amazon_link] by Michael Sandel (I’m looking forward to this after his last book, [amazon_link id=”B002RUA4XE” target=”_blank” ]Justice[/amazon_link])

[amazon_image id=”1427214921″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets[/amazon_image]

[amazon_link id=”0241145104″ target=”_blank” ]Making the Future[/amazon_link] by Noam Chomsky (if it’s your cup of tea – very much not mine)

[amazon_link id=”0465019668″ target=”_blank” ]100 Plus[/amazon_link] by Sonia Arrison (about longevity, looks like it’s more in the self help/personal finance line but she’s recommended by a friend)

[amazon_link id=”1849542872″ target=”_blank” ]The Bank – Inside the Bank of England[/amazon_link] by Dan Conaghan (I know nothing about this but the author followed me on Twitter….)

I was asked to look out for forthcoming titles on Japan but haven’t found any. But there is this interesting contrarian feature by Eamonn Fingleton, The Myth of Japan’s Failure.

And here as a bonus is my review for The Independent of Philip Coggan’s new book, [amazon_link id=”1846145104″ target=”_blank” ]Paper Promises[/amazon_link], well worth a read.

Do economists dream of electric sheep?

In the Philip Dick novel [amazon_link id=”0575079932″ target=”_blank” ]Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep[/amazon_link] (later turned into the movie Blade Runner), when androids are as intelligent as people, it is the capacity for empathy that is the mark of the human. Empathy plays an important part in David C Rose’s account of [amazon_link id=”0199781745″ target=”_blank” ]The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior[/amazon_link] – or rather, what he describes as ‘the empathy problem’. The problem is that in large and complex societies like a modern economy, opportunistic behaviour that benefits the individual (for example, shirking at work because nobody can truly monitor your effort, or pirating a digital song or movie, or insider dealing) damages collective outcomes but only harms other identifiable individuals to a minuscule degree. We feel empathy with other people, not with corporations or society as a whole.

Economics notoriously assumes that people in fact act like androids in their decisions, but Rose argues that can’t be true. In small groups, economic exchange and co-operation are policed by the fact that people know each other. If you ‘cheat’ in your own immediate self-interest, you will be found out, and shamed. You will know your victims personally and feel guilty. So it turns out the self-interest over anything but the immediate moment will lead to co-operation. But economic prosperity as we know it now in the developed countries requires co-operation in large groups, very large. And it must be hard to achieve because many economies haven’t managed. Opportunism is rife and entrepreneurship remains small scale. Trust is confined to the family or community or ethnic group, so transactions costs are high and growth limited.

Rose argues that the development of certain institutions helped combat opportunism. Certain institutions help make opportunism imprudent by introducing sanctions – but they only help when there is a risk of detection. In fact, many institutions themselves depend on the existence of a reasonably high  level of generalized trust. To achieve co-operative behaviour when this risk is negligible, successful economies need to develop internalised moral rules. People need to have instilled in them from childhood a sense of duty, so culture is important. Laws and lawyers are no substitute for moral restraint on selfish behaviour. “We are inclined to under-estimate how much we actually trust each other – especially relative to how much people trust each other in most of the rest of the world,” Rose writes of the US (and other prosperous economies). (p55)

In sum, if a society is to enjoy the economic benefits of large scale and the specialization and trade it enables, they have to make people feel sufficiently guilty about behaving badly. This is not natural, or hardwired in human psychology. Breaching moral restraints needs to feel wrong, whereas positive actions simply need to bring one some benefit.

Rose’s aim in the book is to demonstrate that the economist’s usual approach to trust, basing it on incentives via the argument that there are mutual benefits from high trust, is not valid in a large-scale complex economy. “This is because as any society closes in on being a high trust society, the gains to opportunistic behavior skyrocket if opportunism is only combated by prudential restraint [ie. the fear of being found out].” (p220) Rather, high trust is created by a moral foundation that has nothing to do with empathy – feeling bad about harming people – but instead is a culture-based and hard-won set of foundational rules for eliminating bad behaviour.

The book ends with what Rose describes as a ‘troubling speculation’ that this moral foundation has crumbled in the West. He points to the plentiful evidence of a decline in trust in the US. And it will not be tackled by asserting that moral behaviour is in our own interest really. We have to restrain our tendency to act selfishly because it’s just the right thing to do.

All in all, this is a very interesting and timely argument. It builds on earlier work by Robert Frank, especially [amazon_link id=”0691124019″ target=”_blank” ]What Price the Moral High Ground: Ethical Dilemmas in Competitive Environments.[/amazon_link] I’m not a philosopher, only a flighty economist, so I must admit that I found the more philosophy-based parts of the book pretty hard going. However, the message is important and sobering. Do western economies any longer have the solid moral foundations on which their prosperity was built, or is the dystopia of Blade Runner ahead of us?

[amazon_image id=”0199781745″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior[/amazon_image]

 

The two cultures – a footnote

One thing that has stuck in my mind form reading Stephen Jay Gould’s [amazon_link id=”0099440822″ target=”_blank” ]The Hedgehog, The Fox and the Magister’s Pox[/amazon_link] is his aside about the contrasting presentation styles of those in the sciences and those in the humanities. He claimed that scientists will never cover their powerpoint slides with slabs of texts and will never read out a lecture, whereas academics in the humanities are prone to do both. I don’t know if that’s correct in general but I’m sure he’s right to say writing a text and giving an oral presentations require different styles. So I’m feeling pretty pleased today that I’ve both finished (more or less) writing a lecture (the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Lecture at York on 27 February) and started thinking about the slides and presentation. But it’s going to make every lecture twice as much work from now on!

[amazon_image id=”0099440822″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Hedgehog, The Fox And The Magister’s Pox: Mending and Minding the Misconceived Gap Between Science and the Humanities[/amazon_image]

Teaching humans to be economists

I’m winding down after a day’s lecture preparation by dipping into Deirdre McCloskey’s [amazon_link id=”0472067443″ target=”_blank” ]How to Be Human (Though an Economist)[/amazon_link], always enjoyable. The book fell open at her essay Why Economics Should Not Be Taught In High School. This intrigued me, as I’m currently organising a conference (at the Bank of England on 7 February – details available here) on the teaching of economics, albeit at undergraduate level.

McCloskey writes:

“The trouble with teaching economics philosophically is that a 16- or a 19-year old does not have the experience of life to make the philosophy speak to her. It’s just words… Economically speaking, she hasn’t had a life. She has lived mainly in a socialist economy, namely her birth household, centrally planned by her parents, depending on loyalty rather than exit. She therefore has no concept of how markets organize production. … She does not have any economic history under her belt – no experience of the Reagan Recession or the Carter Inflation.”

She concludes that economics has to be taught tacitly to young people, in the background of other subjects.

The trouble is, undergraduate students don’t have so much experience or wisdom either. And by the time they’re graduate students, they’ve spend a quarter of a century not experiencing the world of markets and jobs. So I think I’d draw the opposite conclusion: teach economics at every age, but teach it over and over again. I think it’s a subject that benefits from iteration. I’m certainly still learning, and I do remember the Carter Inflation and the Reagan Recession.

[amazon_image id=”0472067443″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]How to Be Human: Through an Economist[/amazon_image]

The Moral Sentiments revisited

I’ve just started a book by David C Rose called [amazon_link id=”0199781745″ target=”_blank” ]The Moral Foundations of Economic Behavior.[/amazon_link] It already promises to be very interesting. Take this paradox from the Introduction:

“General prosperity requires co-operation in large groups, but we are indisputably a small-group species. We are therefore maladapted for achieving a condition of general prosperity.”

The argument is that ever-larger groups are necessary for increasing specialization, which is the source of growth and modern prosperity – as Douglass North and Vernon Smith put it, a condition for development is moving from personal exchange in small societies to impersonal exchange. But achieving the necessary trust within large groups depends on a moral framework which does not come naturally….

More will follow when I finish the book.

[amazon_image id=”0199781745″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior[/amazon_image]