May reading roundup

Another month’s roundup (eek). Well, there’s another week to go but as it’s a long weekend I have time to do this.

Work-related first.

The Irrational Decision: How We Gave Computers the Power to Choose for Us by Benjamin Recht. To begin with I thought this would be another book about the embedding of rational optimising decision-making as computers met operations research and economics in the postwar decades. I’ve read a few of those already. It also has a chapter on why RCTs aren’t everything, which I also read recently in Adam Kurcharski’s book Proof, and in re-reading the Deaton and Cartwright paper on this.

The book comes into its own after the early chapters when it moves on to computational pattern recognition, including why adding more data and compute to the process produces a step change in prediction capabilities via neural networks. “There is no theory of why ‘deep neural networks’ – as we now call them – work well on all these different prediction problems,” Recht writes. He adds a few pages later: “Machine learning only makes sense if an engineer doesn’t know how to write the code.” Prediction rests on patterns in data.

The book ends on machine vs human decision-making: “No matter how good human intuition might be, it is evaluated against a metric that is a statistical count.Once someone decides that the metric is what needs to be met and that metric needs to be maximized on average, then the best decision is necessarily statistical. …. If we can measure why humans might be able to outperform machines, then we can build machines to outperform people. On the other hand, if we can’t clealy articulate a set of actions, outcomes, measurements and metrics, then we can’t mechanize problem-solving.” 

So in the end I thought this was a well worthwhile read.

Screenshot 2026-05-24 at 13.23.43Hayek’s Bastards by Quinn Slobodian is an account of how neoliberals co-opted science, and particularly genetic science, for the extreme right. Today’s offspring of the Mont Pelerin crowd cherry pick from the scientific literature to argue for an ‘essential’ human nature and genetic differences.

How to Win A Trade War by Soumaya Keynes and Chad Bown is a funny (yes, really) explanation of trade in theory and practice. It gives advice to the novice negotiator about how to win, or at least cope with, today’s hostile environment for free trade. It’s an excellent intro for students just embarking on trade economics, and for the famous general readers – or possibly airport bookstore readers.

The Achilles Trap by Steve Coll. I htink this counts as work-related, although it was one of the monthly surprises I get thanks to the Daunt’s subscription my dear husband gave me. It’s a very detailed but yet surprising compelling account of the US-Iraq conflict(s). Fascinating to understand how little the Americans and Iraqis understood the other’s decision-making constraints and context.

Non-work

A Year With Gilbert White by Jenny Uglow is a lovely reflection on the nature writer himself, the emergence of nature writing, and the changes happening now in nature.

Common Ground by Rob Cowen is also about nature, this time in the edgelands of modern Harrogate rather than 18th century rural Hampshire. Reflections about change, and rather optimistically change for the better.

We are Movement by Wayne McGregor. This is a sort of how-to book: how to use your body, feel at ease in your body, with wide references to underlying science. I didn’t do all the exercises, and it does verge on woke, but I enjoyed reading it. It was recommended by my friend Mark Fabian, who is an academic expert on well-being.

Before the Coffee Gets Cold by Toshikazu Kamaguchi. Sweet, slight. Rory’s book group chose it so I read it too.

The Heron’s Cry by Anne Cleves – detective fiction comfort read.

April reads (yes, another month has flashed past)

It’s been a busy, busy academic year so it seems I’m only managing monthly round-ups here at the moment. A little more though on two books i’ve read in the past few days.

One was Mark Fabian’s Beyond Happy. Mark, who was a postdoc with us and is now an associate prof at Warwick University, is a true academic expert on wellbeing. He has a definitive recent scholarly book on this A Theory of Subjective Wellbeing. Beyond Happy is aimed at general readers, and is a lovely book. It refers to the literature in philosophy, psychology and economics to offer practical advice – not ‘how to be happy’, but how to make sure your life is meaningful, full of purpose, rewarding: “Wellbeing is about living a pleasant, fulfilling and valuable life. In recent decades we’ve been too narrowly fixated on the pleasant part, and an a crude way too. We’ve gone in for materialism, hedonism and tranquillity.” He also emphasises – in contrast to the dreadful ‘wellness’ industry – that wellbeing is a social phenomenon. Relationships and community make a huge difference. The book is a bit denser than the typical self-help book because it does synthesise the academic literature, but is correspondingly more rewarding.

The other was Markus Gabriel’s Doing Good. I encountered Markus at several workshops in Oxford and Hamburg in recent years as he developed his arguments that “the business of business is doing good.” The book advocates for ‘ethical capitalism’, with a chief philosopher or ethics officer in every business, having the same board status as the finance director. And extending the vote to children so the voice of the future is better represented in democracies. For my tastes, the book is too utopian, focused as it is on why societies need ethical capitalism rather than how they might get there. I tried to imagine how I’d react to its arguments if I were a troglodyte Milton Friedman-loving, greed is good, free marketeer; and am not sure it would make a dent in my certainties. Still, it’s an elegantly argued book that might provide woolly-liberal me with some ammunition.

Other reads this month:

Three state of the nation books – I’ve reviewed them for the FT in the near future – The Land Where Nothing Works by A.G. Hopkins, Challenging Inequalities by Paul Johnson, and Yesterday: the United Kingdom from Thatcher to Covid by Brian Harrison

Holiday reads with the family in Whitstable:

Number Go Up by Zeke Faux – very funny (sceptical) perspective on the crypto world

Death in the East by Abhir Mukerjee – another in this excellent detective series set in India as the independence struggle heats up

Down Cemetary Road – Mick Herron’s first novel.

Careless People by Sarah Wynn Williams. I was late to this whistleblower’s account of what it’s like inside Meta. Eyebrow raising.

Death of an Ordinary Man by Sarah Perry – a beautiful reflection on death, and life, as she recounts her father-in-law’s last days

And since then:

Tyll by Daniel Kehlmann – odd novel set in 15th century Germany, but compelling

The Playbook by James Shapiro – history of the Federal Theatre Project in the New Deal, and its downfall

Silent Voices by Ann Cleves – a Vera novel, just what I needed one exhausted evening. Though I found this less well-written than some of her others in the series.

IMG_7411Whitstable – a great place to read on holiday

Still utopian

The month has been a bit of a blur but on one trip I read People’s Republic of Walmart by Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski. It has one of those long, chatty subtitles that try to save you the trouble of reading the book: How the world’s biggest corporations are laying the foundation for socialism. They wish – the authors are out of the Jacobin stable, and so explicitly (sort of) Marxist.

The premise is revisiting the socialist calculation debate, mashed up with Coase and Simon, in the light of big data and AI. So it’s similar territory to Bastani’s (2020) Fully Automated Luxury Communism. People’s Republic begins with recent examples of large coprorations planning their internal economy using digital technologies, data, and investment in logistcs – Walmart and Amazon. It expands from there to index funds and common ownership, the NHS, the space race and the examples of the Soviet Union and Allende’s Chile. The point hammered home in each chapter is that there are so many examples of managed rather than non-market exchange that technological advances mean planning (or bureaucracy) can replace markets in many more areas of the economy.

There’s certainly an interesting debate to be had about the extent to which AI can potentially substitute for prior modes of organisation, whether market arrangements or bureaucracies, by the new affordances for summarising and organising a lot of information. Henry Farrell and co-authors propose AI is indeed a new social technology.

But People’s Republic fails to distinguish between planned economies – Walmart may be described in this way, in line with Herbert Simon’s well-known observation – and actual (as opposed to ‘free’) markets. The fully free market is as mythical as the unicorn. All actual markets are structured by regulation, other government intervention, standards, customs and other institutional arrangements; but this is not ‘planning’. The book underestimates the huge amount of physical and software investment needed to make Walmart’s logistics possible; organising information is neither entirely intangible nor easy even in the big data era.

It’s also slightly weird, to me at least, to position Walmart and Amazon (even with a benign approach to human labour assumed) as demonstrations of the possibility of socialist utopia in the 21st century. Even before its ‘enshittification’ Amazon couldn’t distinguish between me buying economics books for me and young reader books for my 7 yr old grand-daughter.

I think it likely that AI will reshape economic structures, just as earlier digital technologies did, making Walmart and Amazon possible, along with many other platforms – how dramatically depends on what you think the limits of computability are. It would be nice to think governments will respond strategically in their interventions in the economy and how they structure the operation of markets, though this isn’t something I’d confidently expect. I hope the conditions of labour improve through policy and organisation, doing away with terrible, precarious jobs. But the 1920s/30s lens of (idealised) planning versus (idealised) markets won’t be the best way to analyse what happens. Having said that, this was a very jolly read, and anything debunking the myth that markets are ‘free’ is welcome.

Screenshot 2025-12-23 at 09.44.34

Positive pragmatism

The great Dani Rodrik is giving the S T Lee public lecture in Cambridge on 15th January 2026 (free but please book a ticket if you want to attend). The subject will be his new book, Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World.

The book is an excellent synthesis of Dani’s work in recent years, structured around making the case that trade-offs between the policy objectives of eradicating poverty, tackling climate change, and preserving democracy can be alleviated or even removed. Typically, for example, measures to boost growth in low income countries might be seen as in conflict with preserving jobs for middle class voters in rich countries. The book argues that shifting the poverty-reduction focus to creating service sector jobs (not manufacturing as in the old version of globalisation) mitigates that conflict of objectives.

The book also urges pragmatism: Act at the level of the nation state as global agreements move further out of reach; Accept second-best remedies; Be willing to experiment. After diagnosing where globalization went wrong, the book has individual chapters on pragmatic policies for green transition, good middle class jobs in high income countries, and growth through the service sector in lower income countries.

These together constitute what he calls the ‘productivist paradigm’ – ‘productivism’ is a term I don’t like as it conjures up old-style industrial policies, although I don’t have a better one. I’m also decreasingly keen on the manufacturing vs services dichotomy at all as production occurs in networks or ecosystems that involve both, and high-value services are often linked to high-value manufacture.

Anyway, the productivist paradigm also involves a more active partnership between state and market as neither, alone, leads to an efficient allocation of resources. The final chapter turns back to globalization and calls for a version built around the provision of global public goods. I’m not sure I see much prospect for any activism on global governance at present.

Still, a constructive argument for an active approach to structural transformation in the interests of populations globally is very welcome. Tune in for the lecture!

Untitled

 

Disenshittificatory countermanoeuvres?

It’s been hard to remain unaware of Cory Doctorow’s concept of ‘enshittification’ – it was after all a 2024 word of the year. But I finally got round to the book Enshittification: why everything suddenly got worse and what to do about it, which is an excellent read. It has four sections: Natural History, Pathology, Epidemiology and Cure. The first three – as these headings indicate – describe the problem (through case studies – Twitter, Amazon, Facebook and the iPhone), anyalyse its structure, explain how it came about and spreads (policy choices), and proposes some counter-actions.

There are two key revelations for me. One is the sustained role of intentional policy actors in enabling big (mainly tech) companies to get away with this. For example, although the adverse effects of the DMCA are well-known, I had not previously known that it was made possible by US official Bruce Lehman doing what he described as ‘an end-run around Congress’ by bringing in the WIPO and international treaties that then had to be implemented in US law. The US law was then enforced extra-territorially by US Trade Representatives threatening tariffs on countries which did not implement similar domestic legislation. This long predated Trump’s passion for tariffs.

The other is the importance of interoperability. As Doctorow puts it, all computers are “Turing complete universal von Neumann machines” – they can run any programme. “The fact that every computer can run every valid program means that every enshittificatory gambit has a potential disenshittificatory countermanoeuvre.” The obstacle to doing so is – the DMCA and threat of legal action for breach of copyright by jailbreaking the software restrictions.

Everyone who does anything online is wearily familiar with the deteriorating experience, which makes the Cure section especially interesting. Policy was the cause, and policy is the cure. Doctorow emphasises antitrust policy and regulation. Economists who have studied digital markets will warmly agree. Enforcing interoperabiility is a key weapon – if we can’t force the companies to behave better, we could make them less important, reduce their gatekeeper status. Also, the more I think about it, the more I believe copyright law needs a broad rethink; it isn’t serving society well in sectors other than tech.

So there is technically well-informed good sense in these. But it leaves me thinking – as with many things I’ve read recently – that the barriers are political. There are clear policy options, implementable, and yet they seem outside the famous Overton Window. In this excellent Chicago Booth podcast with Cory Doctorow, he observes that political science has under-theorised the role of policy domains such as anti-trust, and this seems correct. Perhaps the EU, now that US hostility has been made so plain in the new National Security Strategy, will stop trading its digital enforcement for favours on tariffs; as the tariff weapon has already been fired it has lost some threat potential.

Hard to predict. But I have a strong sense, given evident public anger about the state of modern market economies, that something, somewhere, will start to give. It probably won’t be pretty.

Screenshot 2025-12-13 at 12.02.36