Showing posts with label Redactor: Inna Grinis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Redactor: Inna Grinis. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Quincentenary Lecture by Professor Sir Mervyn King



Redactor: Inna Grinis

Fri, 25/11/2011 - 17:00 - 17:45
St John’s College, Cambridge Quincentenary Lecture
by PROFESSOR SIR MERVYN KING, GBE FBA
Governor of the Bank of England


“The Global Financial Crisis"

   In 30 minutes the Governor presented the emergence and the development of the global financial crisis. His main message was that it is important not to confuse symptoms with causes.
    The latter go as far as the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the disappearance of an alternative to capitalism. From the late 1980s emerging economies started adopting market reforms and focusing on trade surplus growth. Capital flew not from the developed world to the developing one, as common sense would suggest, but the other way round. For instance China accumulated $3 trillion of Treasury bills by 2011.  Unfortunately the recipient countries did not have enough profitable investment projects, and this inflow of cheap money pumped consumption to unsustainable levels, and translated into bubbles in housing and stock markets.
     Mervyn King stressed that imbalances are the major cause of this crisis. In the context of Europe competitiveness disparities have accrued since 1999 with Nordic countries, such as Germany or the Netherlands, running 5% trade surpluses, while the periphery countries accumulated 10% deficits. Someone had to finance these, and until last summer this role had been undertaken by the private sector. The Bank sector debt rose from 100-200% of GDP to 500%. However this could not last forever, and the liquidity crisis began on the 9thof August with BNP Paribas Investment Partners freezing their three investment funds, and the BCE injecting 94.8 billion euros into the financial system.
    The actual amount of subprime mortgages was not big enough to provoke such a crisis. It was the huge amount of bets on the mortgages - whether they would be repaid or not - that plunged western economies into this crisis. After BNP Paribas’ filial had suspended its three investment funds, it turned out that all the big banks had been involved. The sum of gains and losses should have been zero, but simple economic arithmetic could not work in this case since no one knew who the real gainers and losers were.  Mistrust took place and banks stopped lending to each other. Indeed banks’ leverage dropped from £50 to £20. Governments had to save these banks by recapitalising them, but at the time no one asked whether they could afford doing so. Hence debt was transferred from the finance sector to the public one. 
      The Great Panic has already destroyed 3 million jobs, and, as the Governor said at the beginning of his speech, no one has the ability to forecast the future.


Friday, November 18, 2011

Questioning the Basic Premises of Free Market Economics: Market, State, and Institutions

Talk by Ha-Joon Chang , Reader in the Political Economy of Development at the University of Cambridge.

Redactor: Inna GRINIS
Ha-Joon Chang decided to base his today’s talk on one of his articles published in 2002* that laid the foundations for a new heterodox approach to economics: the Institutionalist Political Economy (IPE).   Instead of simply criticising the free market doctrine for its anti-interventionist rhetoric, Chang reveals the four real weaknesses of “neo-liberalism” or as he calls it: the “unholy alliance” of neoclassical economics and the Austrian-libertarian tradition.

·  What is a “free market”?
The definition of a free market has evolved over time and there is probably no such thing as a “free market”. Whether a state intervention is considered as undermining the free market or not, will actually depend on the legitimacy and hierarchy of the “rights-obligations” present in a society. Consider for example child labour: today even the most neoliberal person won’t be happy to bring it back, however during the Industrial Revolution, regulating child labour was effectively disrupting a free contract between children who wanted to work, and employers who were keen on employing these children at the ongoing wages.
Therefore we might well see a market as “free” simply because we cannot distinguish between the regulation behind it and the values we have embodied over time.
 ·  “If the market fails, the economy fails”
We can only speak about “market failure” in contrast to some benchmark: the “ideal market”. But who sets the latter? Consider the example of a monopoly: by neoclassical standards this is a “market failure” since the benchmark is the “perfect competition”. On the other hand, according to J. Schumpeter this is a “market success”: monopolies drive capitalism through innovations and their presence makes the economy alive and efficient.
·  The “market primacy assumption”
Already K. Polanyi in The Great Transformation (1944) suggested that it is the state that institutes the market. Examples include the markets for electricity, telephoning, the defence of property rights... The experience of developing and ex-communist countries suggests than once you have destroyed the state, the market does not come in naturally, you need to create it.
·  Market, state and politics
Chang criticises the neoclassical solution of deregulating and depoliticising the market in order to eliminate the problems related to corruption and the interference of selfish bureaucrats with the free market. First of all “self-interest” is not the only motivation of human behaviour, but more importantly the “market is itself political”. The state determines the participants in different markets as well as their rights. Was the interest rate set at 0.25% because of the Supply and Demand interactions in the loanable funds market, or is it a political decision?   
Here comes the paradox: the “free market” that neoliberals want to save from the corrupted politics has been created inside an institutional structure and therefore is itself based on a set of political beliefs.  
   Capitalism is in fact much more than just “the market”: it is a complex set of formal and informal institutions such as the state, firms, markets, social norms...
   The IPE tries to overcome the above weaknesses by introducing the role of institutions. The latter motivate individuals’ behaviour, but individuals themselves can affect and change institutions. We cannot draw a clear boundary between the market, the state and institutions. A framework analysing their interrelation must be created.
*’Breaking the Mould – An Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to the Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and the State’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2002, vol. 26, no. 5
This is Ha-Joon Chang’s personal website: http://www.hajoonchang.net/
A great resource if you are interested in this topic.