Tag Archives: institutions

Money as a process, not a thing

Posted on by

Nigel Dodd’s [amazon_link id=”0691141428″ target=”_blank” ]The Social Life of Money[/amazon_link] is fascinating. I’ve never understood money and don’t think I do yet. One of the signs of its abstraction as a concept is the way people bring their own interpretations to it, perfectly plausibly.

[amazon_image id=”0691141428″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Social Life of Money[/amazon_image]

In my first ever job, in the Treasury in the mid-1980s, I had the task of looking at the properties of different linear combinations of deposits, all corresponding to different definitions of money – not that I over-thought it at the time. Economics textbooks over the years have blithely carried a completely fictional, institution-free account of the money multiplier, and give us probably the least plausible explanation, typically – and unhistorically – claiming money emerged from barter trade.

Information scientist Jaron Lanier’s book [amazon_link id=”0241957214″ target=”_blank” ]Who Owns The Future[/amazon_link], which I’m currently reading, says, “Money is simply another information system.” Digital identity and currency guru Dave Birch tells us [amazon_link id=”1907994122″ target=”_blank” ]Identity is the New Money[/amazon_link]. This echoes Keith Hart in his classic [amazon_link id=”1861972083″ target=”_blank” ]The Memory Bank[/amazon_link]: “The two great memory banks are language and money. Exchange of meanings through language and of objects through money are now converging in a single network of communication, the internet.” Another anthropologist David Graeber in his tome [amazon_link id=”1612191290″ target=”_blank” ]Debt: The First 5000 Years[/amazon_link] rooted money in group cultures. Nigel Dodd is a sociologist so he gives us the sociological perspective.

[amazon_image id=”1861972083″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Memory Bank: Money in an Unequal World[/amazon_image]  [amazon_image id=”1612191290″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Debt: The First 5,000 Years[/amazon_image]  [amazon_image id=”1907994122″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Identity Is the New Money (Perspectives)[/amazon_image]  [amazon_image id=”0241957214″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Who Owns The Future?[/amazon_image]

Dodd’s book starts by looking at the various origin myths and links each to current (sociological) monetary theories. It then takes money by theme: capital, debt, guilt, waste, territory, culture and utopia. The chapter covering the terrain most familiar to economists is that on debt, but it takes an entirely different perspective, with Keynes and Minsky the principal economists named here. The chapter’s conclusion gives its flavour: “A monetary system that i defined by an over-arching orientation toward the interest of creditors is inimical to democracy. …. Democracy, or society, now appears to be in open conflict with the needs of finance. Debt is no longer facilitating capitalism, it is driving it.”

In a way, I found this book very heavy going because it is written in the language of sociology, and with lots of references unfamiliar to me. But it’s good for any of us to look through the lens of a different discipline. I find Dodd’s conclusion persuasive – that money is not a thing but a social process. This tallies with Dave Birch’s argument that the combination of ubiquitous mobiles and their record of a dense social graph means digital identity is fast becoming the latest manifestation of money.

Dodd also presents the paradox that money is both outside the realm of values it describes, as the means of measurement, and inside it as a particular commodity with a value – he quotes [amazon_link id=”0415610117″ target=”_blank” ]Georg Simmel[/amazon_link] as saying money is both the measure and measured. And he links this self-referential character to the capacity for financial bubbles and crises to inflate themselves. True value lies in the social life of money, in the activities of human societies.

[amazon_image id=”B0092JLXJW” link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]ThePhilosophy of Money by Simmel, Georg ( Author ) ON Apr-01-2011, Paperback[/amazon_image]

What this means for monetary policy is another matter entirely, and Nigel Dodd’s forays into economics are far less persuasive – not that there seems to be a more compelling approach to money on offer from the macroeconomists either at the moment. Sticking a bit of ‘institutional’ friction into DSGE models to represent the banking and shadow banking sectors can only be a sticking plaster until monetary economists start to take seriously the insights to be drawn from sociologists and others.

Market failures and government failures

Posted on by

It’s lecture preparation time of week again, and the general theme for next week is the state as a producer: nationalisation and privatisation, PFIs and PPPs, contracting out and industrial policy.

This is one of those areas where there is a vast amount written, but much of it furiously ideological, or else at the wrong focal length for undergraduate students – far too specific or detailed. However, courtesy of Alex Marsh, I have found [amazon_link id=”0801487625″ target=”_blank” ]You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatisation[/amazon_link] by Elliott Sclar.

[amazon_image id=”0801487625″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]You Don’t Always Get What You Pay for: The Economics of Privatization (Century Foundation Book)[/amazon_image]

This refers to privatisation in the US meaning of contracting out, rather than the UK sense of the sale of state assets. It starts by situating the debate in the context of the shifting tides of political beliefs over the 20th century, towards planning and the role of government as an agent of social change, and then back towards “free” markets and individual action. It then has a few chapters on the basics of markets versus administered or planned services and market failures, and also the basics of writing contracts and how hard or easy it is to specify the service and level of quality to be provided. This part has some very good and clear examples about how difficult it can be to get the incentives right in such contracts – indeed, how often there are perverse incentives due to contract structure.

The book goes on to market structures and competition, and organisational theory – the distinction between exchange in a market and a continuing relationship between individuals or organisations. The book ends with a plea for a less ideological debate about the issue, in favour of one more informed by economic and institutional analysis, by the realities of information asymmetries, moral hazard, principal-agent problems and the like. I wholly sympathise, for of course markets and governments fail in the same places for similar reasons – and this is why [amazon_link id=”0521405998″ target=”_blank” ]Elinor Ostrom[/amazon_link]’s study of the idiosyncrasies of non-market, non-state collective institutions is so interesting. But am not optimistic about shedding the ideology.

There’s no doubt what Prof Sclar’s views about contracting out are, so this is in that sense a partisan book. However, it is carefully reasoned and the economic issues are set out clearly. The writing is lively with loads of examples (albeit all American), and the book is extremely clear – perhaps it helps that Prof Sclar is an urban planner rather than in an economics department!

It’s too long, and perhaps a bit too demanding, for 2nd year undergraduates though. (One of the things I’m learning in delivering my course is that my idea of a reading list is far longer than others like the look of.) If anybody knows of anything alternative (short-ish) readings that shed more light than heat, I’d be glad to know, especially UK-centric ones.

Mavericks, mistakes and mum

Posted on by

I caught up earlier this week on the drama Castles in the Sky about Robert Watson Watt and his invention of radar. My mum had been a young (18) radio location operator on the outskirts of London during the Second World War and liked to talk about it, so I was very interested, and thoroughly enjoyed the programme. It turns out there is an active Robert Watson Watt society which is raising a statue to him in his birthplace, Brechin. I knew nothing about him before this.

Kathleen Coyle is in this group of early radar operators

The story very much brought to mind two excellent books. One is Tim Harford’s [amazon_link id=”0349121516″ target=”_blank” ]Adapt[/amazon_link], about the structures that enable significant innovation – the ability to accommodate mavericks and mistakes, the importance of skunkworks and so on. The other is [amazon_link id=”0141042826″ target=”_blank” ]Most Secret War[/amazon_link] by R.V.Jones, about scientific intelligence during the second world war, including the decryption and encryption work at Bletchley Park. It’s also concerned with this question of how ideas work and fruitful failure can mesh with bureaucracy and order, and with the deep problem of information, the signal and the noise.

[amazon_image id=”0141042826″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Most Secret War (Penguin World War II Collection)[/amazon_image]

Adventures in international finance

Posted on by

[amazon_link id=”1408704927″ target=”_blank” ]The Summit: The biggest battle of the Second World War [/amazon_link]by Ed Conway is a rattling good read. It is of course about the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, which laid the foundations for the post-war international economic arrangements, and the part they played in the stability and growth of that remarkable 30 years.

[amazon_image id=”1408704927″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Summit: The Biggest Battle of the Second World War – fought behind closed doors[/amazon_image]

I picked it up expecting a book going over familiar territory. Only last year I read Benn Steil’s excellent  [amazon_link id=”0691162379″ target=”_blank” ]The Battle of Bretton Woods[/amazon_link]. However, The Summit is well worth a read even by Bretton Woods afficionados. It combines terrific storytelling with new archival material.

And what a story! You get a real sense of the physical location – the book starts and ends with the hotel – and the bustle of a huge international conference, meeting everywhere, people huddled in corners. Keynes called it a “monstrous monkeyhouse.” The hotel owner got so fed up with the delegates and the confusion that he threw everybody out before the treaty was entirely ready. Nobody had read every page and the stage was set for much further wrangling.

The characters are extraordinary, from Keynes (who comes across as more unlikeable the more one reads about him) to China’s H.H.Kung, the drunken Russians, the (probably) Soviet spy and chief American negotiator Harry Dexter White, and the obstreperous Indian delegation (some habits die hard…). The book quotes the then UK ambassador to the US commenting on Keynes’ manner: “He was really too offensive for words and I shall have to take measures.” Also amusing is the personality clash between Keynes and Lionel Robbins, another self-confident economist in the British delegation.

It’s always good to be reminded that alongside the debates about economic theory and practicalities, personalities, politics and the vagaries of history shape our institutions.

This would be a terrific introduction to international monetary matters for students, an enjoyable way to dip into some of the economic debate before getting started on it in earnest. And for everybody, it’s not only a good read but good background for reflecting on how international finance is ordered – or not – today, and what it took in 1944 to bring about a different kind of agreement.

 

Innovation, the Romans and ‘us’

Posted on by

There’s a new e-book free to download from Vox EU,Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures.

The list of contributors is stellar, starting with the leading Stagnationists, Robert Gordon and Larry Summers, but also including economists such as Ed Glaeser and Joel Mokyr who disagree with the basic secular stagnation assertion that the pace of innovation and therefore technology-driven growth has declined.

For example, Glaeser writes: “It is hard to think of any innovations before the modern age that increased demand for the most skilled workers while providing consumer benefits for
the masses. Indeed, for such a thing to occur, one must imagine a world in which highly paid elite workers toil for the benefit of services that will be used by the poor. Could
such a thing be imaginable in pre-revolutionary France or in Ming China? Yet that is
exactly what happens at Google or Facebook. Highly paid workers work constantly to
improve a service that is provided freely to hundreds of millions of poorer users.”

He continues: “This inversion of the traditional nature of innovations represents the rise of superstarlike technologies (Rosen 1981) that enable the highly competent to provide their
services as almost a public good, with no congestion in use. The most natural precursor
to this modern inversion was well-paid artists, such as writers and movie stars, who
entertained the masses. The inversion also happened when Fred Astaire and Ginger
Rogers danced for depression-era movie audiences. The essentially zero marginal cost of providing internet-related services means that they are often monetised through the advertising of goods with a positive marginal cost. It is free to use Google, but their search engine will nudge users towards their advertisers. The free nature of these services has meant a democratisation of access to information; a fact that is rarely considered in attempts to measure inequality.”

However, the essay goes on to say this does not mean that all is well. It focuses on the adverse employment consequences of the interaction of negative demand shocks and labour market/educational institutions. There’s innovation, and then there’s who benefits from it. In that famous question, ‘What did the Romans ever do for us?’, the emphasis should be on ‘us’ not on ‘Romans’.

The book is a great summary of the state of the debate. I’m in the Glaeser/Mokyr camp at present, but none of us should be anything other than open-minded about these questions.