Monday, 17 February 2014

Cardinal Marx rethinks economics


Author: Henry Tugendhat

The Catholic Church’s new leadership has come out strongly against neoclassical thought, its lack of engagement with moral philosophy, and its impact of poverty. Their message is a welcome contribution to the post-crash debate on how we might refocus economic policy around moral principles.
“The collateral damage of capitalism is not acceptable” stated Cardinal Marx at a lecture hosted by St. Benet’s College, Oxford (Feb 11th 2014). Neoclassical thought “is a utilitarian view of economics that tells us some may suffer and we may get increasing income inequalities, but in the long run we’ll all be better off… this [utilitarian approach] is exactly what the communists did before!”


Cardinal Marx’s latest book, ‘Das Kapital: A plea for man’, elaborates these criticisms against the almost religious application of singular economic schools of thought such as Marxism and Neo-Classical economic theory at present. That said, he still draws lessons from both of these schools among others to focus his economic thinking around Catholic teaching. Ultimately, as he told the Oxford audience, “the church’s social doctrine is not against markets, but against utilitarian economics":



With views like this, one might think he represents a minority in the group of the Catholic Church, however his responsibilities have increased enormously under the new Papacy. He is the archbishop of Munich, the head of the European Union Bishops’ Conference Association, and one of the new Pope’s most trusted inner circle of 8 Cardinals responsible for Church reforms.
It is surely no accident that Pope Francis should have chosen him to be one of the front-line leaders in his assault on poverty. The new Pope’s own choice of name, Francis, speaks volumes about his commitment to the poor, and he has grabbed headlines with his relatively austere lifestyle in comparison with papal predecessors. But what is most significant, is that he has chosen to re-engage with poverty at the level of the political economic debate.
For decades, Rome stepped out of economic discussions. It had already condemned the atheism of many Communist movements in the 1930s, so when the Cold War settled in, this among other reasons led to the leaders of the Church to side with the West. As Western nations increasingly associated themselves with neoclassical economics, church leaders saw no reason to intervene.
That said, there were still movements within the Church that critically engaged with the moral philosophy surrounding economics such as the liberation theologists in Latin America, key Catholic politicians who favoured socialist policies such as Julius Nyerere, and even some links between the Communist Party and Catholic Church in France. 
Pope Francis (or Jorge Bergoglio as he was known then) never associated himself with liberation theology despite its popularity with many Argentinians. Instead, he has been accused by some in Argentina as complicit with the Videla dictatorship of the 1970s. In any case, there is no doubt that there are traces of his current views amid the melting pot of economic ideas in Latin America since the 1960s.
With the arrival of Pope Francis to the Holy See, the question of a moral economy has been brought squarely back into the debate. On May 1st last year, Francis came out to condemn the “slave labour” under which the Bangladeshi textile workers died: “today many social, political and economic systems have chosen to exploit the human person [in the workplace] by not paying a just (wage), not offering work, focusing solely on the balance sheets… only looking at how much I can profit. This goes against God!” In November last year he published the Apostolic Exhortation ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ that called on his faithful to see the very real moral consequences of our current economic frameworks.
This, along with Cardinal Marx’s own exhortations against “utilitarian economics”, makes a very useful contribution to the post-crash crash debate, as well a case for pluralism. Pluralist economics might best be described as drawing from a selection of economic schools of thought, as befits the situation at hand, and therefore serve humanity better. It can do this with a focus on human well-being, a green economy, or as we see here, the ethical imperatives. So although the Church does not apply the scientific rigour as put forth by some, it is still taking the crucial first step of cleaving open the debate on why we should break out of mono-paradigmatic views of the world.
As the first Pope to be elected since the financial crisis, this is a significant time for Francis and his inner circle to be shaping the economic debate within the Catholic community. His criticisms of the policies and culture surrounding the modern financial sector certainly go back to the 2001-02 Argentinian banking crisis which he blamed on the “crudest form of liberalism”. Keen to lead by example, the Pope has actuated reforms on the Vatican’s bank (rather mysteriously named the Institute for the Works of Religion) to open it up to external auditing and scrutiny.
Ultimately, the Church is making an ethical contribution to the post-crash debate in that it argues for some form of moral philosophy to be brought back into our economic thinking. Certainly they are still mired in a number of other controversial debates with important social impacts, such as transparency over child abuse cases. This article is also by no means a clarion call for the church to get back into statecraft. However, we should welcome the fact that the spiritual leaders of 1.2 billion people around the world are now boldly and publically rethinking economics.

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

Post-Crash, CSEP and Rethinking Economics met with MPs and Economists on 5th Feb





Rethinking Economics, the Manchester Post-Crash Economics Society and the Cambridge Society for Economic Pluralism (CSEP) met with MPs and economists at Portcullis House on Weds 5th February:




Rafe Martyn (CSEP), Maeve Cohen (Post-Crash) and Yuan Yang (Rethinking Economics) spoke about the history of the groups, the problem with a narrow focus on neoclassical economics, our position on curriculum reform and the INET CORE Project, and the national and international campaigns for curriculum reform.

Other Attendees
Alex Andrade (SOAS), Adrià Porta Caballé (University of Essex), Alicia Krozer (CSEP), Neil Lancastle (University of Leicester), Diana García López (CSEP), Hoang Nguyen (UCL), Marco Schneebalg (CSEP), Daniele Tori (University of Greenwich), Sam Wheldon-Bayes (SOAS), Preeti Varathan (CSEP).

The economists and MPs present included Michael Burke, Victoria Chick, Caroline Lucas, Michael Meacher, James Meadway, Jo Michell and Özlem Onaran.

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy

Your proposal needs to be original, unpublished elsewhere, and should relate to one or more of these subject areas:
  • Conference and other news from the Rethinking network
  • Book reviews, especially for our notable supporters
  • Articles that relate to curriculum reform and greater pluralism in economics. These might focus on theory, methodology or data problems
  • Activism reports from the broader movement for pluralism in economics, such as ISIPE
  • The impact of a lack of pluralism on policy debates


Content should be…


  • Focused.. topical, in terms of the question asked or issue raised
  • Accessible… with terms defined and good referencing of concepts
  • Presentable… with diagrams or charts to aid the reader and a suitable image to increase the chances of people clicking on it

Please submit in Word format (DOC or RTF) to rethinking-economics-blog[at]googlegroups.com. 500-1000 words are suggested, and you are strongly encourage to include a (copyright-free) photograph for distribution on social media.

The Review Process
We have a lightweight peer review process, that is informal and exploratory. Encouraging and responding positively to comments will increase your chances of publication. Accepted proposals will be promoted via the RE newsletter and social media.

You can read about the Editorial team here.

To Apply as a Blog Editor
Applications are welcome at any time. Please email rethinking-economics-blog[at]googlegroups.com with a a short statement explaining why you make a good Editor. Your commitment needs to be a few hours per week for an initial 12 months.



Friday, 22 November 2013

Who is Rethinking Economics?


We're young and international!

Rethinkers are most likely to be aged 18-34, but could be anywhere in the world...

London, Oxford, Cambridge, New Delhi, Berlin, Manchester, Lisbon, São Paulo, New York, Vienna, Washington, Bangkok, Lahore, Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Copenhagen, Paris, Islamabad, Rio, Mumbai, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney (NSW), Milan..

and many, many more!




Wednesday, 3 July 2013

Why Economics Should Be Rethought

The Assumptions About Human Nature Hidden Behind the Respectable Veil of Economic Analysis

Author: Anonymous

Economic decisions in government are evaluated using cost-benefit analysis. Thus the Department for Transport established that a high-speed north-south rail link (HS2) was good value for money by determining that every £1 of cost to the taxpayer would lead to at least £1.8 of benefits. And what could be more sensible than carefully weighing up the pros and cons of a decision to society in order to determine the preferred option? Behind the illusion of rigour and dispassionate logic, however, are a number of assumptions about what humans are which many of us would surely not subscribe to. And yet, the actions of almost all public bodies supposedly acting in our interests, from the Bank of England to the International Monetary Fund, work on exactly this basis.

Perhaps the most brazen assumption is that humans’ wellbeing is purely determined by their lifetime consumption. Undeterred by 2500 years of philosophical debate on the source of human happiness, Economics proceeds with its own simple prescription. An esteemed economist has argued that the profession has got away with this for so long because sources of happiness other than consumption are at least a function of it. For example, a plausible alternative view of human happiness is that it is status-driven, determined by a citizen’s level of consumption relative to others. In this case, a policy that increases a citizen’s individual consumption would also increase their relative consumption, so increased wellbeing would still be achieved. This argument falls flat, however the moment a policy is applied to a nation rather than an individual. If a government policy increases all its citizens’ consumption by the same amount, then their relative consumption will not have changed so they will be no happier than they were at the start. So even this small tweak to the standard Economics view of human happiness would call into question much of government economic policy. And in any case, presuming that our happiness is predicated purely on the amount of phones and clothes we buy surely paints an unduly shallow picture of humanity.

Economics also assumes that humans care less about the future than the present, and in a banal sense there is some truth to this. Putting the tub of ice cream in the fridge for later, for instance, tends to be harder than eating it straight away. However when it comes to assessing something more consequential like how much we care about the damage that climate change will inflict, can it still be justified to assume that we value the future less? This could lead to the absurd conclusion that a policy which ended humanity would be economically acceptable if the apocalypse happened sufficiently far in the future that the lost happiness of the dead future generations was deemed to be negligible by today’s myopic citizens. Arguably the inadequacy of public pressure to force any significant political action on climate change demonstrates that people today don’t in fact care about the future effects of climate change or are at least sceptical about its impact. That is not to say that they would not feel regret once the consequences become more apparent, however. But this capacity to change one’s mind and feel remorse is again excluded from the economic decision-making process.

Evidently the view of human nature assumed in economic policy-making is a narrow one, and yet it issued not just to make decisions in the Western world but to impose polices on countries across the globe via the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Thus this view of humanity, borne from the traditions of Western economists is taken as the basis for policies in cultures with countless different philosophical traditions and a wealth of perspectives on human nature. Would Economics not be more powerful if a different variant existed for each view on what humans are? Perhaps in this way Economics could be rethought.