Kicking away the ladder too

The table below comes from Broadberry and O’Rourke's The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe. It shows that national control of the money supply, the monopoly of emission, is a 19th century phenomena, something we discussed with L-P. Rochon in this paper back in 2003.

Note that before the mid-19th century period, which Charles Goodhart aptly calls the Victorian era, central banks had been created for supporting the State’s financing needs. Also, the role of lender-of-last resort (LOLR) in the late 19th century, associated to Bagehot, did not lead to a significant change in the Victorian preoccupation with price stability.

It is only with the Great Depression that the Victorian dreams of a self-adjusting economy with a tendency to full employment and an orderly division of labor, where the periphery only produced commodities and imported manufactured goods, were utterly shattered. In my view, an contrary to Goodhart, the crucial element on the rise of Keynesian Central Banks was the abandonment of Say's law, not of the Real Bills Doctrine, as we discuss here with Esteban Pérez.

I wrote a paper (in Spanish), when I was at the Central Bank of Argentina, that has not been published on these topics, titled 'Kicking Away the Ladder Too,' in obvious allusion to Ha-Joon Chang's use of List's expression. The point is that central banks were used as tools of economic development (the Bank of England for sure), but once central economies went up the ladder they kicked it, suggesting that central banks should only be concerned with inflation. Now that the Keynesian moment has passed, the mainstream has gone back to the inflation obsession.

Kirsten Ford, a young Old Institutionalist

Kirsten Ford (1976-2014)

I first met Kirsten in the mathematics leveling class for the incoming PhD students. I think it was in 2007, but it might have been the year before. She felt she needed to take more math courses, and did so at Westminster College, where she had obtained her Bachelor's degree. She had come to economics out of a concern with social justice, and her early views were shaped in Dick Chapman's classes on Keynes' General Theory and Chace Stiehl's discussion of classical political economy authors, both PhDs from Utah's graduate program, which influenced her choice for her graduate studies.

At that time I taught two regular courses in the graduate program, the second required macro class, which basically reviewed heterodox approaches and growth theory (both conventional and heterodox views), and the second history of economic thought course, which went from the Marginalist Revolution to the post-capital debates developments (the change in the notion of equilibrium, and what I referred to as the return of vulgar economics; the first part of the course on classical political economy and Marx was taught by E.K. Hunt). She and her classmates, which were among the best cohorts of students in the PhD program I can remember, took also two other elective courses with me. A seminar on Sraffian topics, and a course in international economic history.

That course was not chronologically organized. The topics covered emphasized unresolved controversial issues in international economic history, e.g. whether there was an Industrial Revolution, the critique of Eurocentric interpretations of History, and the revival of cultural and geographical explanations for relative backwarderness. One of the most fun courses I ever taught, not just because I basically taught what I wanted, but more importantly because I never learnt as much from my students as I did in that opportunity.

Kirsten's interests were broad, but she had a particular concern with the institutional aspects of economic development, approached from a historical perspective, and that would include the history of ideas. That was very much in line with the institutional/Marxist traditions that already existed in Utah's economics department, and fit with my own work in what might be called the Classical-Keynesian tradition (classical meaning the old classical political economists, including Marx, as interpreted by Sraffa, while Keynesian puts an emphasis on the radical followers of Keynes and Kalecki).

She published early on a paper (in a Brazilian journal called Versus, which I suggested as a venue; accessible version here) that was based on a previous one done in a development course with Nilüfer Çağatay. It was a critique of the New Institutionalism of Douglas North, and a discussion of the Veblenian, or Old Institutionalist roots in the radical development economics of Ha-Joon Chang. She also published, with Bill McColloch, one of her colleagues in the graduate program, a paper on the Journal of Economic Issues on the methodological compatibility between Marx and Veblen (working paper version available here), influenced by Hunt's views on the topic, to some extent.

Kirsten also collaborated with me, and Nathaniel Cline, another graduate student at the U, on a paper on the persistence of mainstream policy advice, even after the crisis of the marginalist paradigm in the 1970s, in which we hinted that a real world economic crisis, like the Global Recession of 2008, was an unlikely cause for significant changes in the direction of research, which was published in the Journal of Philosophical Economics (see here). Kirsten was particularly interested in the role of the IMF as a the institutional instrument by which conservative policies were maintained in developing countries. Further research on the lack of change in the IMF policy positions that she conducted will be published later this year in Development and Change.

She was also interested in the role of institutionalist authors during the New Deal, and helped me to do research on Marriner Eccles papers at Marriott Library. We had a project of publishing some of Eccles speeches as the chairperson of the Fed.

Kirsten was extremely generous in her intellectual exchanges, unwilling to take her contributions as exclusively her own, and sharing them as part of the knowledge of the group. Surprisingly that's not common among the heterodox tribe, in which pride and the desire for prominence often lead to fratricidal disputes. She was also generous with her time, dedicating immense amounts of it to organize the Heterodox Economics Student Association (HESA), and making the economics department better for other graduate students, and to her classes and her students. Economics as a profession is a little bit better because of her work.

Chang & Grabel on The End of The Neoliberal Approach To Development

The following is an extract from Ha-Joon Chang and Ilene Grabel's new book Reclaiming Development: An Alternative Economic Policy Manual :

We should take note of what we see as the beginning of the end of the neoliberal approach to development. The process of discrediting that development model begins in the aftermath of the east Asian financial crisis of 1997–98. At the time there appeared to be nothing new in the nature of the east Asian crisis or in the crisis response. But, in fact, the east Asian crisis marked the gradual beginning of the end of the neoliberal consensus in the development community. The severe constraints on policy space that followed the east Asian crisis created momentum behind a new vision – that developing countries had to put in place new strategies and institutions to prevent a repeat of the events of the late 1990s. Policymakers in a number of Asian countries and in other successful developing countries sought to insulate themselves from the hardships and humiliations suffered by east Asian policymakers at the hands of the IMF. Indeed, as a consequence of the crisis, the IMF suffered a loss of purpose, standing and relevance. In the early 2000s, demand for the institution's resources was at a historic low. In 2005, just six countries had standby arrangements with the fund, the lowest number since 1975. From 2003 to 2007, the fund's loan portfolio shrank dramatically: from $105bn (£63bn) to less than $10bn. The fund's loan portfolio contracted even further after the loans associated with the east Asian crisis were repaid, as those countries that could afford to do so deliberately turned away from the institution. This trend radically curtailed the geography of the IMF's influence. In this context, the IMF began to soften its traditional opposition to policies that regulate the international movement of capital (ie policies called "capital controls"). At the same time, the World Bank also began to show signs of grudging change in its traditional opposition to industrial policy.

Read the rest here.

Note: Chang & Grabel's book has an introduction written by Robert Hunter Wade. Although I could not transcribe parts of his intro into this post, let it be known that much of Wade's position with respect to the topic at hand is illustrated here.

Heterodox Central Bankers and Microcredit

Jayati Ghosh's presentation at the Central Bank of Argentina was a harsh critique of microcredit, which according to her has "gone from hero to zero" in less than a decade. Jayati relies on Bateman and Chang recent critique of microfinance, which suggests that microfinance is actually a barrier to economic growth and poverty reduction. A lot of the microcredit experience in India resembles a loan shark operation, with very high rates and heavy penalties, and is part of a broader drive to liberalize financial markets. It is important to note the perverse effects that fads in economic development might have on policy making.

Heterodox Central Bankers: Kicking Away the Ladder Too

Let me briefly comment on two additional and interrelated presentations at the Central Bank of Argentina's annual conference. Two of the presentations were important in dispelling the myth that central banks were historically only concerned with inflation, and not particularly relevant for economic growth. Jane Knodell presented a paper on the evolution of the US banking sector from the late 18th century up to the Civil War, including the First and Second Banks of the United States, which were in many ways like the Bank of England a quasi-central bank.

Jane's presentation very clearly shows that the main role of the First Bank of the United States was as a fiscal agent of the federal government, its liabilities used to collect revenue and meet federal payment obligations, including debt service, a similar role to the Second Bank. More importantly, she concludes that the closing of the Second Bank by Andrew Jackson had a positive effect on growth, since the evidence suggests that countries with central banks concerned with the Gold Standard, as they tended to be in the 19th century, grew less than the US.

Valerio Cerretano's presentation was on the little known, at least among economists, industrial intervention by the Bank of England and the Bank of Italy in the inter-war period. Both central banks became directly involved in the 1920s and 30s in the administration of industrial firms, through direct management or through participation in holding companies. In the case of Britain the Bank of England was essential for assisting reconstruction of traditional sectors (heavy industries and cotton) and development of innovative industries (man-made fibres, aluminium), some of which were crucial latter in the war effort.

In other words, central banks have been directly involved in the funding of the Treasury and the industrial sector in developed countries, but it seems that, as Ha-Joon Chang has suggested for the case of international trade, once they got up the ladder using their banks to promote development they kicked it, and argued that they should only promote price stability.

Rethinking Trade and Commercial Policy at the University of Utah

Peter Ho, from the University of Denver, gave a nice and stimulating talk based on his recently published book. He tries to rethink classical political economics views on trade, reviewing the contributions of Smith, Ricardo and Stuart Mill, and the trade policy advise that derives from it. Without having read the book, the presentation suggests a sort of institutionalist approach to the critique of the mainstream.

One thing that did strike me out as peculiar to the presentation, but which may not be reflected in the book, was the critique of the mainstream view of trade on the basis of Ricardo/Mill rather than the Heckscher-Ohlin (HO) model. Note that comparative advantage in the HO story is associated to full utilization of resources and relative prices determined by scarcity (for a critique see here). That's clearly not the case in Ricardo.

Also, the Ricardian (properly understood as part of the surplus approach) story is less about the benefits of trade in general, and more about which social class benefits and which one loses from protection (see my discussion here).

One last point about the talk, that I would have liked to discuss with Peter (I had to leave for a defense) was on Mill. He was a peculiar author in-between classical political economy and marginalism, and his contributions are more problematic to properly understand than authors like Ricardo and Marshall. In fact, Mill is a key author to understand the break between the surplus approach and marginalism. As noted by Krishna Bharadwaj, what was Ricardian in Mill's theories does not appear in Marshall's work, and what is proto-Marshallian in Mill's ideas was not part of Ricardo's views of political economy. In that sense, while I'm comfortable with a Smith/Ricardo approach to trade, I'm less keen about adding Stuart Mill to the mix.

PS: I should have noted that his discussion of trade policy builds on Hamilton, List, Prebisch, Myrdal, Singer and others, like the work of Ha Joon-Chang. A paper of mine on a similar subject is the entry on Export Promotion for the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Sandy Darity (here).