Argentina, Economic Science and this year's "Nobel"

Trump wanted the Peace one, Milei the one in Economics

A few random thoughts about some recent news. Today, Javier Milei met with Donald Trump at the White House. Trump reportedly warned that the United States “will not be kind” to Argentina if Milei does not win the upcoming elections. That statement seems to suggest that the much-discussed “rescue” of the Argentine peso may be tied to domestic electoral results — something that Treasury Secretary Bessent had already hinted at when he announced the possibility of a US Treasury rescue package for Argentina.

No surprise there. But the situation brings back memories of earlier crises — particularly the 2001–2002 collapse, when Argentina defaulted after a long neoliberal experiment of liberalization, deregulation and privatization under the Menem administration. The current crisis, which began with the 2018 IMF program, is in many ways a continuation of that same process.

Back in 2002, the crisis caught one economist in particular by surprise: Rudi Dornbusch. Writing in the Financial Times, Dornbusch argued that Argentina could not be trusted to govern itself and proposed that its fiscal and monetary policy should be overseen by a foreign board of central bankers — a shockingly neocolonial suggestion, even for that time ["I'm shocked, shocked I tell you"]. I wrote a short letter to the Financial Times in response, which you can find here, mocking this absurd idea.

Two decades later, we are still dealing with the same problems. The “cleanup” of the 2002 mess took place under the so-called populist governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, through two major debt renegotiations in 2005 and 2010. During that period, Argentina’s debt-to-export ratio — a measure of repayment capacity — improved significantly [see my piece on Challenge on that and the Vulture Fund negotiations that Macri ended up finishing in a favorable way to the Vultures; you know on what side he is]. Yet the Macri administration (2015–2019) more than doubled the foreign debt once again, setting the stage for the current crisis [on the doubling of debt see this piece with Matias De Lucchi; whole issue, scroll down].

In short, the same set of economic elites have crashed the economy multiple times. Domingo Cavallo, Menem’s finance minister and architect of the 1990s convertibility plan, reappeared at the end of the De la Rúa government in 2001. Federico Sturzenegger, who was at the central bank during Macri’s failed experiment in 2018, is now serving as Milei’s Minister of Deregulation. This revolving door of orthodox technocrats has brought Argentina back to the IMF, and now possibly to a US Treasury rescue, for the third time in a generation.

What’s frustrating is how the narrative never changes. The mainstream explanation — repeated recently by a well-known economist from the Di Tella University — is that Argentina’s problems are caused by irresponsible “populists.” In his version, written in academic jargon about sunspots and expectations, the blame somehow always falls on Peronists, whether they are in power or not. If the economy collapses, it’s because investors fear a Peronist comeback; if it booms, it’s despite them. Don't worry, it won't.

This kind of argument says a lot about the state of the economics profession, perhaps more than about Argentina’s actual economy. Instead of looking at straightforward indicators — who increased the foreign debt, how exports performed, whether external repayment capacity was sustained — many economists hide behind highly subjective assumptions disconnected from reality.

This is part of a broader problem in Latin American economics: what my colleague Franklin Serrano calls “brain damage” — not “brain drain.” The issue isn’t that talented economists leave the country, but that many return from US PhD programs armed with orthodox models that have repeatedly failed our economies. They bring back the intellectual framework that justifies the very policies that keep generating crises.

This brings me to another bit of recent news: the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics (technically, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). This year’s award went to Philippe Aghion Peter Howitt, and Joel Mokyr for their contributions to what’s broadly called “Schumpeterian growth theory” — work that connects innovation and technological change to economic growth. Surprising and soul crushing news to Milei, who wanted the prize for stabilizing the economy (a miracle according to Niall Ferguson).

Aghion and Howitt's models attempt to explain long-term growth by endogenizing productivity — the famous Solow residual. They borrow Schumpeter’s language of innovation and creative destruction, though often in a far more formal framework. In that sense, the connection to Schumpeter is more symbolic than substantive. Still, compared to some recent laureates, this year’s selection is a relatively defensible choice. Their models are certainly more in line with Schumpeter that some of the heterodox neo-Schumpeterian models.

Joel Mokyr, a historian, has written extensively on the cultural roots of the Industrial Revolution. His work offers a deeply Eurocentric — also, and more importantly, culturalist and supply-side — interpretation of why growth took off in Europe. While I disagree with much of that perspective, it’s undeniable that the Industrial Revolution did begin in Europe, and any serious account must explain that historical specificity. The problem is less Eurocentrism per se than the exclusive focus on supply factors, ignoring the demand and institutional dimensions that Keynesian and structuralist economists once emphasized. In that sense, I welcome the recognition of a historian among the laureates. But I also lament the profession’s retreat from the richer, more historically grounded analyses of scholars like David Landes, whose The Unbound Prometheus offered a more balanced view of the Industrial Revolution — one attentive to the demand aspects of economic growth.

Perhaps the real lesson — both from Argentina’s crises and from this year’s “Nobel” — is that economics still struggles to learn from its own history.

Course on the Argentinean Economy in Portuguese

For those interested in the Argentinean economy, and that can understand Portuguese, I'm teaching a virtual course on the Rise and Fall of Argentina with my friend Paulo Gala. Some teasers are available here. Below the first class.

Btw, my suggestion is that basically there's no fall, if the economy never rose in the first place.

More on the "Consumer Revolution"

I have noted before (and here and here) the neglect of the role of demand in more recent historical accounts of the Industrial Revolution. The typical view used to emphasize demand, like in Landes' Unbound Prometheus, but more recent accounts like Allen or Mokyr emphasize technological change and supply side forces.

Thankfully, there is a whole new literature that puts an emphasis on the so-called Consumer Revolution, in particular the work of Maxine Berg. T. H. Breen in The Marketplace of Revolution goes further and suggests that the economic reasons behind the American Revolution were also associated to the transformation in consumer culture. In his words:

"What gave the American Revolution distinctive shape was an earlier transformation of the Anglo-American consumer marketplace. This event, which some historians have called a 'consumer revolution,' commenced sometime during the middle of the eighteenth century, and as modestly wealthy families acquired ever larger quantities of British manufactures— for the most part everyday goods that made life warmer, more comfortable, more sanitary, or perhaps simply more enjoyable—the face of material culture changed dramatically. Suddenly, buyers voiced concerns about color and texture, about fashion and etiquette, and about making the right choices from among an expanding number of possibilities."

In this view, the demand for new goods (and not so new too), tea, coffee, tobacco, chocolate, china, calicos, silks, etc. was central for the technological revolution of the 18th century. What Breen seems to suggest is that the same Consumer Revolution that was taking place in England was taking place in America, and that the subordinated role in the colonial pact, and the trade restrictions imposed by the many Parliamentary Acts, are at the heart of the movement for independence. In other words, not only demand might be relevant to explain economic growth, but economic growth might be central for political developments.

Ben Franklin, Consumption and the Industrial Revolution

The idea that demand expansion was central for the Industrial Revolution, in Keynesian fashion, was at some point dominant among economic historians. It was, for example, explicit in both Phyllis Deane and David Landes famous books about it, both published in 1969 (The First Industrial Revolution and The Unbound Prometheus, respectively).

It is also well-known that Adam Smith recognized that productivity growth (the division of labor) was limited by the extent of the market (demand), so that growth and the wealth of nations, which depended on productivity growth, and not on the accumulation of foreign reserves (gold) or trade surpluses as defended by Mercantilists, was in a sense demand-led.

Ben Franklin is not often cited in relation to his economic writings, but he was knowledgeable in the main developments of his time.  He was both a defender of the labor theory of value, and of paper currency in his famous A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper-Currency, and the consensus is that his ideas came essentially from William Petty, the father of the surplus approach according to Marx.

As it turns out Franklin had also something to say about the role of demand in the process of industrialization in Britain. He said in Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. (here) that:

"But in Proportion to the Increase of the Colonies, a vast Demand is growing for British Manufactures, a glorious Market wholly in the Power of Britain, in which Foreigners cannot interfere, which will increase in a short Time even beyond her Power of supplying, tho' her whole Trade should be to her Colonies."

In other words, he suggests that the role of higher demand by the colonies was essential in the process of industrialization. I should note that there is no consensus among those that defend the demand side story of the industrial revolution between domestic demand or foreign demand, but increasingly the literature associated to the changes in the patterns of consumption in Britain suggests that it was domestic markets (e.g. Maxine Berg and her discussion of the consumer revolution).

Dean and Cole vs. Crafts on the Industrial Revolution

My understanding of the debate on how fast, or revolutionary if you prefer (Rondo Cameron suggested it shouldn't be called a Revolution), was the Industrial Revolution is that a lot hinges on how much weight one puts on the cotton sector, in which most of the increase in productivity and growth took place in the early stages. Dean and Cole (review here) presented the traditional notion of a relatively fast growing economy, while Crafts and Harley argued for a gradualist transformation in which only a few sectors grew fast (cotton, iron and transportation) and the transformations were slow at best. The graph below by Wrigley shows nicely the difference in both views.

Note that Wrigley assumes that the estimates for GNP and GNP per head for the early 1830s are accurate, hence the differences in rates of growth imply diverse initial levels. Wrigley does not challenge the consensus view that is increasingly dominated by Crafts and Harley's numbers, but the graph below, also from his book, provides surprising evidence for a very large expansion of income.

Note that energy consumption per capita in England increases at a very fast pace all through the 18th century. It is well known that, particularly in periods of transformation of the structure of production, energy consumption per capita is closely correlated with income growth.

PS: Total factor productivity (TFP) is the measure used by Crafts and others to conclude that productivity was slow to grow in the period. On the problems with TFP go here.

Crowding out and the Industrial Revolution

A while ago I posted on Bill McColloch's paper on the role of financial regulation during the 18th century. One of the arguments that Bill's paper tries to refute is the idea that the revisionist views that suggest slower growth in England during the Industrial Revolution (Crafts and Harley here; subscription required) was caused by crowding out (see, for example, Jeffrey Williamson here). Bill correctly points out that interest rates remained low in England.

The graph below, from Dickson's classic book on the Financial Revolution shows that throughout the 18th century interest rates actually fell.

More importantly, British rates remained well below the levels of the French ones, and gave a significant advantage in their quest for global hegemony, as the graph below shows (source here).

Note that even if one accepts the lower rates of growth suggested by Crafts and Harley, the explanation for the lower rates of investment should not be that surprising. Yes, the accelerator. Lower levels of growth imply one needs lower levels of investment in order to adjust supply to growing demand.

The Second Industrial Divide and the Third Industrial Revolution

According to Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, in his recent book Makers: “the word desktop is being added to industrial machinery, with equally mind-blowing effect. Desktop 3-D printing. Desktop computer-controlled routing, milling, and machining. Desktop laser cutting. Desktop computer-controlled embroidering, weaving, and quilting. Even desktop 3-D scanning, or 'reality capture,' digitizing the physical world. Desktop fabrication is leading to full-on desktop manufacturing.” The idea is a bit like the old (relatively speaking) book by Michael Piore and Charles Sabel on The Second Industrial Divide, which suggested that flexible specialization was making mass production obsolete.

The idea is that desktop manufacturing is creating the conditions for mass market for niche products, as he says, bringing down the barriers to entry in many sectors. There is a bit of wishful thinking in the book (not done yet, but will report back at the end), but one should note that the author nails the importance of manufacturing for development. In his words: “any country, if it wants to stay strong, must have a manufacturing base. Even today, about a quarter of the U.S. economy consists of the manufacturing of physical goods. When you include their distribution and sale in retail outlets, you’re talking about closer to three-quarters of the economy. A service economy is all well and good, but eliminate manufacturing and you’re a nation of bankers, burger flippers, and tour guides. Software and information industries get all the press, but they employ just a small percentage of the population.”

Note that this suggests that the U.S. economy, which is ahead in the desktop manufacturing technology (e.g. 3-D printers, used recently to create ... yes, a gun!; 3-D scanners, laser cutters, computer numerical control routers, etc.) is actually still at the forefront of the industrial revolution, in spite of the talk about deindustrialization.

A Shackled Revolution? The Bubble Act and Financial Regulation in 18th Century England

New Working Paper by Bill McColloch, which refutes anti-Keynesian (crowding out) views on the Industrial Revolution (IR). From the abstract:

"Revisionist estimates of growth rates during the British industrial revolution, though largely successful in presenting a more modest picture of Britain’s ‘take-off’ prior to the 1830s, have also posed fresh analytical difficulties for champions of the new economic history. If 18th-century Britain was witness to a diffuse explosion of ‘useful knowledge,’ why did aggregate growth rates or industrial output growth rates not more closely shadow the pace of technological change? In effort to explain this paradox, Peter Temin and Hans-Joachim Voth have claimed that a few key institutional restrictions on financial markets – namely the Bubble Act, and tightening of usury laws in 1714 – served to amplify the "crowding out" impact of government borrowing. Against this vision, the present paper contends that the adverse impact of financial regulation and state borrowing in 18th century Britain has been greatly overstated. To this end, the paper first briefly outlines the historical context in which the Bubble Act emerged, before turning to survey the existing diversity of perspectives on the Act’s lasting impact. It is then argued that there is little evidence to support the view that the Bubble Act significantly restricted firms’ access to capital. Following this, it is suggested that the “crowding out” model, theoretical shortcomings aside, is largely inapplicable to 18th century Britain. The savings-constrained vision of British capital markets significantly downplays the extent to which the Bank of England, though founded as an institution to manage the public debt, provided the entire financial system with liquidity in the 18th century."

The paper by Temin and Voth is here. Their recently published book is here.

Crafts and Harley's re-interpretation of the IR in Britain, alluded to in the text, is available here (subscription required). The classic book on the British IR that Crafts and Harley try to supersede is by Deane and Cole (here). A discussion of the two views by Temin is available here.

On whether the British government had a role in financing the IR, it is worth remembering Pressnell's (subscription required) words, for whom:

"Amongst the half-truths of economic history is the generalization that British Governments did not finance the Industrial Revolution. That public financial aid was not a regular and conscious process cannot be doubted; equally, it is indisputable that Government was not distinguished during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by the provision of financial facilities commensurate with a period of economic expansion. In practice, however, a considerable volume of public money swelled the funds of private bankers, and in this indirect fashion helped to fructify private enterprise."

Pressnell suggests that country bankers were often tax collectors, and closely related to industrial activities. The incredible growth of public debt, to 260% of GDP by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the increase in government revenue to pay for debt service, implied a signiifcant increase in liquidity which is associated to the financing of the IR.

PS: Newton (pictured above) lost his pants in the South Sea Bubble, and also was famous for getting the exchange rate between gold and silver wrong (he was the Master of the Mint), leading to hoarding of silver, and the beggining of an effective Gold Standard in Britain.

Property rights and the Industrial Revolution

I have discussed here a few times (here, here and here, for example; last one by Cesaratto) the role of institutions in the process of economic development. Within the mainstream the dominant view is that property rights are the essential institution for promoting growth. I only now came across the excellent paper by Julian Hoppit.* He says:

"Such views of the interrelated importance of property and the rule of law have led to major interpretations of the interplay of Britain’s economic, social and political histories, including that secure property rights were a vital foundation for the first industrial revolution. Yet property was often heavily taxed, frequently expropriated and, exceptionally, eradicated through redefinition. Such vulnerabilities did not diminish after the Glorious Revolution, they increased—mainly because parliament now met annually, had greater sovereign power than earlier monarchs and legislated prolifically regarding property. After 1688, Britain’s economic precocity rested less on the enhanced ‘security’ of property in any general sense of the word, much more on respect for parliament’s authority and its willingness to allow property to be alienated, most usually by particular interests claiming to act for the public or wider good. At times this required the reversal of commitments made only a generation earlier, raising doubts about central government’s credibility. Taken together, these uncertainties over property rights were sufficient for some to question whether property had a sound theoretical basis at all.
...
The scale of that expropriation was such, and the consequences so profound, as to undermine an important thesis that property rights became more secure after the Glorious Revolution, developed in a notable essay by Douglass North and Barry Weingast and now conventional amongst some ‘new institutional economists’."

Hoppit looks at the extensive expropriations in financial markets, after the South Sea Bubble, in heritable jurisdictions (offices granted by the Crown), and in the property of slaves. Very little is left of the new institutional argument.

* Julian Hoppit in "Compulsion, Compensation and Property Rights in Britain, 1688-1833," Past and Present, No. 210, Feb. 2011 (here; subscription required).

The last Marxist? Or shortchanging Hobsbawm

(1917-2012)

According to The Economist, Eric Hobsbawm, who has just died on October 1st, was the last of the Mohicans, I mean Marxists. Its news to me. In my view, the surplus approach which was brought back by Sraffa and builds on Marx is the ONLY coherent economic theory left standing. Marginalism (i.e. neoclassical economics) is nothing but a profession of faith, after the capital debates.

Among other things, because there is a role for historical and institutional analysis in the surplus approach, related to both the theories of distribution and accumulation, the work of Hobsbawm and other surplus approach historians is essential. The obituary was very thin on his contributions to our understanding about key issues in capitalist development.

The review of his contributions in The Economist's obituary was typical of what was written in the press (see also here; the exception here). A lot about his life, and range (yes I know he liked jazz, who doesn't?!), but his research was not quoted at all. Comments on his books were almost always restricted to the surveys on economic growth since the Revolutions, the so-called Age of Trilogy.

According to The Economist:

"That Marxist tag threatened to tarnish his reputation, when his lucid and scholarly books on what he called the long 19th century, from 1789 to 1914 (“The Age of Revolution”, “The Age of Capital”, “The Age of Empire”), on nationalism and on labour movements deserved, and won, an audience well beyond leftist circles and academe.

Defiant, Mr Hobsbawm championed Marx to the last. For his intellectual force; for his grasp of the world as a whole, at once political, economic, scientific and philosophical; and not least for his conviction, as relevant in 2008 as in 1848, that the capitalist system, with its yawning inequalities and naked greed, would inevitably—irresistibly—necessarily—be destroyed by its own internal tensions, and would be superseded by something better."

Marxism not only is not relevant, but it almost tarnished his reputation. There is no mention of what was, in my view at least, his major book, namely: Industry and Empire. His book is part of the tradition that suggests that the Industrial Revolution (IR) was demand driven, not supply constrained (like David Landes used to believe in the 1960s, in his Prometheus Unbound). Further, he argued that external demand (as Phyllis Deane) was crucial, and he insisted that without colonial markets, particularly in India (i.e. without Empire) there would be no Industrial Revolution. Imperialism and the search for global hegemony are joined at the hip with the development of Capitalism.

Also, there is nothing about his views on the standard of living debate during the Industrial Revolution.  To modern economic historians like Jeff Williamson and Peter Temin (subscription required) the IR had a positive impact on the living standars of the working class. Hobsbawm, like other Marxist historians, e.g. E.P.  Thompson, was on the pessimist side of the debate. For a modern pessimistic view see Charles Feinstein (subscription required too).

Hobsbawm was not just a popularizer of history, he was central for important debates in the Marxist tradition, which should be central for understanding of modern capitalism. Hobsbawm's theoretical underpinnings of his views of capitalist development, by emphasizing demand, are in the tradition of what we refer in this blog as classical-Keynesianism. Marx's views on distribution as conflictive, which are part of the broader surplus approach tradition, are essential for Hobsbawm contributions to economic history, and show why Marx is still relevant and required reading for anybody that wants to understand capitalism (i.e. the world we live in).

PS: Other central Marxists contributions to historical analysis are associated to the transition to capitalism, and Dobb and Sweezy are still required readings. Note that Marxists suggest that the origins of capitalism are associated to institutional changes in the productive structure (which might be pushed by expanding demand), and not as a result of cultural or geographical matters.

Is Growth Still Possible?

Paul Krugman has recently pointed out a very pessimistic, but very instigating paper by Robert Gordon, about the possibilities of long run growth. Gordon suggests, very boldly, that the: “rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history.” In his view, long-term stagnation is a very possible outcome. The reasons are associated to the effects of technical progress on investment.

Gordon argues that, while the first (steam, cotton textiles, railroad) and particularly the second (automobile, chemicals, electricity, oil) Industrial Revolutions (IR) led to a significant increase in investment, the third IR (information technology) has been less prone to lead to significant increases in investment. Further, the advantages of the first and second IRs were incremented by demographic changes and the process of urbanization, which created the need for investment in infrastructure.

Read the rest here.

Phyllis Deane (1918-2012)

Phyllis Deane retired emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge and an authority on economic history, particularly the British Industrial Revolution, and the history of economic ideas, has passed away. Data collection on the British National Accounts led to her volume, with Max Cole, British Economic Growth, 1688-1959, which remains a classic on the Industrial Revolution, and later to her broader volume on the topic depicted above. She also wrote a very readable volume on the history of economic ideas, The Evolution of Economic Ideas.