skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Scott Sumner On Why Neoliberalism Is Not To Blame For The Great Recession And Rising Inequality
See
I wish you a very neoliberal Christmas.
"The world is full of problems, and always will be. Thus there are
almost an infinite number of causes that I might advocate. I've decided
that my time is most effectively used if I focus on two goals, promoting
market monetarism and advocating neoliberalism.
Over the past decade it has become intellectually trendy to argue
that neoliberalism is passé, and that this policy regime was pushed too
far. As far as I can tell, the backlash against neoliberalism is driven
by two factors:
1. The Great Recession was blamed on the excesses of unfettered capitalism.
2. Since the late 1970s the world has moved in a neoliberal
direction. During this period, some economic problems have gotten
worse, such as economic inequality.
The first point is easy to dismiss, as we've seen that movie before.
Recall that the Great Depression was initially seen as being caused by
laissez-faire economic policies. There is little doubt in my mind that
economists will eventually come to realize that the real problem in 2008
was tight money, just as the causes of the Great Depression were
re-evaluated after the publication of the Monetary History.
The second complaint is more interesting. The basic error here is to
focus on time series evidence rather than cross sectional evidence.
Yes, the world has become more neoliberal, and at the same time certain
problems have gotten worse. But that's only one observation.
It's also true that the world is better off in many ways than was the
case back in 1978. In contrast, cross sectional evidence provides over 100 observations. Here's a recent headline and subhead from the Financial Times:
Argentina takes steps to boost stature on world stage
Macri government is re-engaging with globalisation as others question its benefits
Voters in the US and the UK can dabble with socialists like Sanders and
Corbyn because so little is at stake. The economic system is so firmly
entrenched that no election is likely to move policy dramatically in one
direction or another.
Developing countries do not have that luxury. Argentina was a mess
when Macri took power. All he had to do is look around to understand
that neoliberalism (i.e. Chile) offered a better option than socialism
(i.e. Venezuela.)
One counterargument is that while a certain amount of neoliberalism
is clearly appropriate, we went too far during the neoliberal era. Once
again, however, there's no real evidence to support that claim. If
that were true, then the countries at the top of the Economic Freedom
rankings would be doing worse than the countries further down the list.
But that's not the case. Which Western Hemisphere economies are doing
better than Canada, the US and Chile? Which Asia/Pacific economies are
doing better that Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand?
Which European economies are doing better than Switzerland and Denmark?
If neoliberalism is being overdone, then please tell me where I can
find the cross sectional evidence for that claim? Who are the
overdoers?
It seems plausible that neoliberalism could be overdone, but we are
still quite far from reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Neoliberalism is a policy mix that remains well worth advocating.
PS. I define neoliberalism as a combination of relatively open
markets and borders, deregulation, sensible environmental policies (such
as pollution taxes), and sensible (non-punitive) policies of
redistribution. The details may vary from one country to another.
Notably un-neoliberal countries include Greece, Russia, Venezuela, North
Korea, and much of the developing world.
PPS. If neoliberalism caused the Great Recession, then why did the
most neoliberal (developed) economies suffer the least, and the least
neoliberal (i.e. Greece) suffer the most?
PPPS. Here is the top 15 in the Cato rankings:"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.