Such has been the reaction that many of the signatories to this week's Observer letter were "not proper economists". Nor was Keynes. Nor was Hayek. Friedman is at most a partial exception.
Hayek, in particular, is still looked at askance even by very right-wing "proper" economists, although they realise that they have to be careful to whom they say these things. It is very much like the attitude of even very conservative "proper" theologians when it comes to C S Lewis or G K Chesterton: they are perhaps vaguely glad that anyone has been pointed in the right direction by having been been converted to the former's Mere Christianity or to the latter's Orthodoxy, and they might even have been such people when they were very young indeed, but that is strictly as far as it goes. I am not necessarily endorsing such a view, only pointing out that it is there. And that is also the attitude to Hayek even among those who might be regarded as on the same side as he was.
Hayek was a political philosopher. One of his doctorates was in political science. The other one was not in economics. Economists are not necessarily being complimentary when they call someone a political philosopher, any more than vice versa. And even as one of those, if Reagan and Thatcher really did believe themselves to have been influenced by Hayek, then, as Enoch Powell said of his own alleged influence over Thatcher, they cannot have understood any of it. Powell is another example of this post's main point, since his only academic background was in Classics generally and Ancient Greek specifically.
But he had overriding and undergirding social, cultural and political reasons why he wanted the economy to be organised in a certain way. He did not see economics as a positive science. That was why he was influential. And that was why he would never have passed muster as a "proper" economist. Nor would Keynes. Nor would Hayek. Nor, really, would Friedman. Nor, even, would Adam Smith. The only figure of any importance to have held that politics ought to be defined in terms of economics, rather than they other way round, was Marx, so that thus to define is precisely to be a Marxist. But Marx, a lover of philosophy and literature whose father had forced him to do law at university but who was never very good at it, had no academic background in economics, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're quite right, as far as you go, though I think you've missed the point of the objection.
ReplyDeleteThe examples of Keynes, Hayek, Smith etc. simply establish that the economics that matters is not defined as "what proper economists do." The economics that matters in the public sphere is what I suppose used to be called political economy. In other words it is politics (in which every citizen can engage) looked at from an economical standpoint.
The same occurs in theology (my own field). Lewis, Chesterton etc are more truly theologians than many people holding theological qualifications and positions, because Lewis and Chesterton are in the public sphere of theology.
Public spheres (the state, Parliament, the press, the pulpit) are more important than private ones (the academic book, the conference, the conversation). The latter's importance is almost entirely due to its (of course potentially vast) influence on the former.
The point of the rather ad hominem attacks on the signatories of the Observer letter, though, is entirely political. The letter is a tactic in a political debate, and the attacks on the signatories are a defence against it. It is surely an example of the tendency to seek out "impartial" and "objective" evidence to support one's own policy. We see the same thing with the government's trumpeting of the IMF's support for its plans.
The point is that impartial and objective support does not exist, because statecraft is not only an economic but a political and philosophical issue. With Chesterton (and against Marx) we should maintain that we have freedom of choice: progress, reaction, decline are all possible, and none inevitable; and therefore the public debate is about choice, not merely about analysis.
In sum, the Observer signatories are the right people to take part in the debate, but the wrong people to pretend to judge it. (The same goes for the IMF, of course.)