The Value of a Sceptical Economist

The summer is here and that means that at last there is time for some reading. I have finally had the pleasure to enjoy Jonathan Aldred's The Skpetical Economist, which has sat on my book tower no. 3 for several months. What I enjoyed most about the book was the way that he has put the mental effort into expanding my somewhat airy comment to students that costing the aspects of life we value most is 'spiritually offensive'. Aldred explores our objections to such processes and finds them not only ethically coherent but rationally sustainable.

Much of the content of the book was familiar territory for me, but the argumentation was excellent and the references to heterodox work, and work that tests the neoclassical theory in the real world and finds it wanting, are now all handily on one place. His central point is about the social and ecological threat of the system which respond to Gus O'Donnell's pithy phrase: 'If you treasure it, measure it', and more specifically, price it. Here is Aldred summarising his view of the risks this attitude poses:

'It is the practice of valuing things in terms of money which in itself leads us astray. Almost all of us have an instinctive sense that some things should not be valued in terms of money. But what exactly are we objecting to? . . . As well as the practical difficulties, monetary measurement presupposes a common scale of value; but the thing being measures may have multiple dimensions or attributes, with different kinds of values not reducible to being measured along a common scale. Or the thing being measured may have inherently qualitative attributes, which cannot be measured on any quantitative scale.' (p. 207).

The chapter that offered me most new and interesting insights was Chapter 7: 'New Worlds of Money: Public Services and Beyond'. This is the best account I have read so far of how the project to marketise the public sector has been driven by those who would privatise it and has been grounded in weak intellectual reasoning unsupported by evidence. Aldred makes a convincing case that ethics and motivations in the public sector are just different from those in those in the private sector. Assuming similarity, and introducing inappropriate systems of audit and incentive, is likely to reduce the quality of the service, while increasing its cost and impairing the performance of those who provide it.

Towards the end Aldred reaches one of his most pungent points: the danger of the performativity of economics. Performativity is one of those abstract, academic concepts that I can never keep quite clear in my own head, but how it translates is that if you spend enough time acting as if something were the case, it becomes habitual and starts to actually become the case for you. This was familiar turf for Dale Carnegie and exponents of assertiveness training, but its consequences in terms of economics are more sinister:

'The self-fulfilling nature of some economic analysis is one instance of a more general phenomenon: economics can be 'performative'. That is, the act of doing or performing it, of studying the world using the ideas and tools of economics, may change the world being studied. In other words, merely using economic theory can help to bend the world to fit that theory.' (p. 223)

Thus our own moral system may become skewed: we may begin to imagine trees with price-tags or to feel like looking after our patients less well because we have undergone a pay freeze. This is why the onward march of economics into the priceless areas of personal relationships and natural treasures should be strenuously resisted. Whenever somebody shares with you the now nearly common sense that you don't value something unless it has a monetary price, please join me in pointing them in the direction of their own children.
. Tweet

Bluetooth or Bluejay?

Recently my boss wanted to be nice to some of her new staff members as so she thought kindly and offered us an iPad each. This threw me into a real quandry, because I am concerned about the energy embodied in such gadgetry, obviously, but also because I object to the way more and more areas of my life are mediated through an electronic machine. I have recently tried to identify birdsong and constellations with the assistance of an iPhone (not my own). I suggested some campus chickens instead but nobody thought I was serious.

The day I received my iPad I was carrying it across our admittedly rather leafy campus when I was accosted by a jay, which stood in my path and eyeballed me. I was arrested and charmed and we spent a good five minutes in a strange sort of mutual fascination. Other students came and went but both the bird and myself were undisturbed. Reading later on the web that these are shy creatures I was even more charmed.

Relearning this sort of direct relationship with our animals cousins is surely a better way to protect their habitats than reading endless dire statistics about the loss of rainforests and species. I hope this is the flavour of a conference organised at London Zoo where I'll be speaking on 25th of this month. Called, Economist as if Life Mattered, the publicity for the conference runs like this:

'What does the global economy have to do with orangutans, polar bears, spotted owls, elephants and cod? Along with countless other species, these animals are on the verge of extinction and our current unsustainable economic system is the main driving force behind the global extinction crisis. On the 25th of May, join conservation and economic experts to explore these links and outline strategies for prioritising wildlife conservation in the new economy.'

You can find the full programme here and it would be great to be joined by others who are, like me, resisting the costing and commodification of nature.

As for my relationship with my new iPad things are not going well, in spite of my request for a green cover - a lurid, vapid green, as it turns out. I notice that I was almost immediately conveyed to the 'App store' and so the spending of money is a crucial part of being an iPad owner - so much for the 'free' gift. I am also fighting the desire to download the Tetris App, which for me is rather like having 'just that one drink'. By some route I cannot understand, and perhaps with subliminal intention, my Mail function is stuck. I am not hurrying to seek assistance to unstick it.
. Tweet

Come On You Reds!

It was this image of David Beckham, wearing the green-and-gold blazon of the gathering campaign against the ownership of Manchester United by the Glazers, which made it clear to me that the move towards football supporters' trusts was more than a minority sport to warm the hearts of those of us on the mutual fringe of economic life.

Here is evidence that capitalism has overplayed its hand. The working men of this country ignored the way it destroyed their workplaces, their families, even the music they enjoyed. But now it is serious: now it has reached the place closest to their heart. Capitalism is destroying football, and that hurts. The billionnaires who have moved into the game are wrecking the sport, but also wrecking our football clubs as businesses.

Marx theorised the commodification of aspects of life that we value as being central to the social process of alienation. The products of our labours are usurped by the owners of capital who employ us, and something of our essence is stolen too. 21st-century capitalism extends this process by what is known as 'financialisation', so that every aspect of economic life is hollowed out, its meaning being replaced by the empty token of money. In work we see the hegemony of the accountant; in music the rise of the manufactured band.

But it is for football that people are apparently prepared to stop whingeing and take action. New research commissioned by Co-operatives UK indicates that 83 per cent of Manchester United fans and 72 per cent of Liverpool fans thought their club would be better off as a co-op. The YouGov poll found that 56% of all the football fans who gave an opinion agreed. Manchester United fans were willing to invest about £600 each, which could raise the £2.34bn. needed to buy the club.

The latest plan afoot to save Manchester United from becoming a hollow icon has been inspired partly by the example of Barca - always a co-operative and arch-rival to the formerly pro-Franco Real Madrid, who Beckham chose to play for - which has always been a co-operative. The 'Red Knights' plan to raise investment finance to buy the club and then sell shares to its own fans. Whether they seek to gain from this financially is hard to assess, but we might hope that the sense that ownership matters it brings could spill over from the terraces into the workplaces of this country. Tweet