究竟是誰推動新自由主義 Neoliberalism

原來The Guardian這篇評論是他們2016年在臉書上最受歡迎貼文第三位，我亦見過臉友對George Monbiot此文讚譽有加。若問我，只能冒著被人取笑，老實回答：不合格！

不是對文章的結論，亦即文章的標題Neoliberalism - the ideology at the root of all our problems有太大異議（雖然過份誇張簡化），而是，Monbiot本末倒置，拼命強調Hayek/von Mises/Friedman等人對新自由主義Neoliberalism的興起（或曰復興）所起的作用，好像這批學者在大財團背後支持下，密謀推動西方政府採納Neoliberalism作為主導思想，待到70年代中，時機成熟，一舉功成，誤盡蒼生幾十年！

我所認知的實情是，到了70年代末，戰後穩佔主導地位的凱恩斯主義經濟政策流弊漸露，造就了新一代，深受大市場/小政府學說（Hayek/von Mises/Friedman等人是表表者）影響的政客執政，美國是Reagan，英國是Thatcher，為Neoliberalism奠下基石。所以，主要是時勢亦即當時的社會（主要是經濟）發展，需要主導理論的範式轉移（paradigm shift），結果召喚了新自由主義，也令該派學者抬頭。

我也認為，這統稱為Neoliberaliam的西方管治主流對今日世界面對的大難題，甚至危機，要負上重大責任。但Monbiot將矛頭指向那幾位學者，是本末倒置，是二流報章寫手的慣技。不合格！

當今世界危機重重，人心不安，Neoliberalism作為治國主導思想看來已走到末路，進入另一範式轉移階段。不過，從目前看，舊的不行了，新的仍未明確，唯一較明顯的趨勢，是各國埋首走自己的民粹路，強調make our own country great again，世界走入追求安穩但反而更加動盪的局勢。

下載Six Big Ideas！

功德無量！

The Economist將最近逐期刊登的Economics Briefs: Six Big Ideas集成一個pdf檔供讀者下載！

During the summer of 2016, The Economist ran a series of briefs on important economic theories that did just that—from the Nash equilibrium, a cornerstone of game theory, to the Mundell-Fleming trilemma, which lays bare the trade-offs countries face in their management of capital flows, exchange rates and monetary policy; from the financial-instability hypothesis of Hyman Minsky to the insights of Samuelson and Wolfgang Stolper on trade and wages; from John Maynard Keynes’s thinking on the fiscal multiplier to George Akerlof’s work on information asymmetry. We have assembled these articles into this collection. 

● Information asymmetry: Secrets and agents
● Financial stability: Minsky’s moment
● Tariffs and wages: An inconvenient iota of truth
● Fiscal multipliers: Where does the buck stop?
● Game theory: Prison breakthrough
● The Mundell-Fleming trilemma: Two out of three ain’t bad

澳洲經濟連續增長25年！

恭喜恭喜，澳洲經濟已連續第25年正增長！

- ABC: GDP: Happy 25th birthday to Australia's economic growth


應該說，澳洲25年來的好景，鄙人功不可沒

尤記得，1991年初移民澳洲之日，正是本國陷入二戰後最嚴重經濟衰退之時

曾說過澳洲搞不好經濟改革開放，就會淪為香蕉共和國的財長Keating

坦言This is a recession that Australia had to have（這是澳洲非經歷不可的一次衰退）

不過，鄙人之到來，猶如為本土經濟打了強心針

其餘的，已是歷史哪

極端市場經濟學

馮睎乾：經濟學怪論

毒販對社會有貢獻嗎？奧地利經濟學派的布拉克（Walter Block）教授認為有。在Defending the Undefendable一書，布拉克指出海洛英引發的社會問題，歸根究底不是來自濫用它，而是來自禁制它。 

書中又談及誹謗。布拉克說，要有效維護社會各人名譽，最佳措施是令誹謗合法。

與其說Walter Block的Defending The Undefendable是“怪”論，不如說“極端”，極端市場萬能論

大市場，小（“小”外加“門”亦可）政府，連海耶克初讀都覺得“重口味”（見書前序言）。

實際上，不少同路人接受不了他的極端思維。


- 想讀這書，可從Mises Institute（奧地利學派大本營）免費下載，epub或pdf版任擇

Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics 中譯面世

原來此書的中譯本，《凱因斯對戰海耶克：決定現代經濟學樣貌的世紀衝突》，剛由麥田出版。

翻查記錄，我在2012年初讀過原書，並寫下一句短評：

Nicholas Wapshott, Keynes/Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics
- 非常無聊的“對決”經濟學故仔書，讀不下去。

----------------------------------------

相關閱讀：
- Sylvia Nasar的Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius亦已譯成中文：偉大的追尋：經濟學天才與他們的時代

Thoughts on the sociology of Brexit 前景無望下的選擇

Will Davies: Thoughts on the sociology of Brexit

今早在臉書再貼這篇好文，因為我覺得其中一段的看法很有意思，對了解英國脫歐，美國Trump勃起，甚至香港港獨都有參考作用：

BREXIT WAS NOT FUELLED BY A VISION OF THE FUTURE 

Crucially, [researchers of the Doncaster project] observed that – in strong contrast to the Scottish ‘Yes’ movement – Brexit was not fuelled by hope for a different future. On the contrary, many Leavers believed that withdrawing from the EU wouldn’t really change things one way or the other, but they still wanted to do it. I’ve long suspected that, on some unconscious level, things could be even stranger than this: the self-harm inflicted by Brexit could potentially be part of its appeal. 

This taps into a much broader cultural and political malaise, that also appears to be driving the rise of Donald Trump in the US. Amongst people who have utterly given up on the future, political movements don’t need to promise any desirable and realistic change. If anything, they are more comforting and trustworthy if predicated on the notion that the future is beyond rescue, for that chimes more closely with people’s private experiences. ... it seems clear that – beyond the rhetoric of ‘Great Britain’ and ‘democracy’ – Brexit was never really articulated as a viable policy, and only ever as a destructive urge. 

Thatcher and Reagan rode to power by promising a brighter future, which never quite materialised other than for a minority with access to elite education and capital assets. The contemporary populist promise to make Britain or American ‘great again’ is not made in the same way. It is not a pledge or a policy platform; it’s not to be measured in terms of results. When made by the likes of Boris Johnson, it’s not even clear if it’s meant seriously or not. It’s more an offer of a collective real-time halucination, that can be indulged in like a video game. 

The Remain campaign continued to rely on forecasts, warnings and predictions, in the hope that eventually people would be dissuaded from ‘risking it’. But to those that have given up on the future already, this is all just more political rhetoric. In any case, the entire practice of modelling the future in terms of ‘risk’ has lost credibility, as evidenced by the now terminal decline of opinion polling as a tool for political control.

（此文也收錄在Verso新出版的Brexit電子書The Brexit Crisis: A Verso Report。目前仍是免費下載）

行止適時

《信報》創辦人林行止連續兩天以「理論和政策貴在適時」（學理無懈可擊 實踐弊端顯現 | 節省公帑效益私有! 受薪階層永不翻身?）為題寫新自由主義的過猶不及：

筆者常說經濟政策必須「適時」，在不適當時刻推出一套理論上無懈可擊的政策，不僅不會收成效，而且極可能對經濟造成負面衝擊；經濟理論亦如此，以筆者的有限閱讀和經驗，完美無瑕的經濟學理，所謂放諸四海而皆準，亦只會在一段特定時空下發揮積極作用，逾期雖不致報廢，卻肯定失效。因為這種緣故，經濟評論者若心中有偶像，認為憑某位宗師或某派學說的理論制訂的政策，只要貫徹始終，一國以至世界經濟便可以持續蓬勃發展，這種想法是要不得的。評論者最寶貴的本質是獨立——獨立於任何政治團體同時不要膜拜某位大師及視某種學說為顛撲不破的真理！ 

這百數十字的囉嗦，是讀了國際貨幣基金（IMF）機關刊物《金融及發展》六月號（第五十三卷第二期）由三名研究員合撰的〈新自由主義——過猶不及？〉（Neoliberalism: Oversold?），「有感而發」。

過往林行止信奉新自由主義經濟學，且通過他的《信報》社論大力宣揚。就我所知，他的經濟信念動搖，第一次以長文解釋，應是六年前那篇「為何應定較高的最低工資」。那時，他已提出，「理論和政策貴在適時」的較務實看法：

從實證（Positive）角度看，任何硬性規範市場活動的立法，在香港這個崇尚自由的社會，都是反動不可行；但看香港社會現實，以經濟學的規範（Normative）方法，則可能得出非立法定出最低工資不可的結論，而這種結論，筆者認為是「適時」的。為什麼筆者會作出這種違反經濟學原理的價值判斷？答案是香港社會愈來愈不公平，雖然「不公平」是驅動社會進步、刺激經濟向前的原動力，但在社會貧富兩極化已趨極端而且大企業佔盡優勢的現在，不以立法手段平民憤，恐怕會種下更深的禍根。 

在《信報》前三十年，筆者義無反顧地維護具香港特色的資本主義制度，不僅追隨先進文友，不甘後人積極地把西方有關學說引介給本地讀者，在壯大此間資本家演變至後來有點強取豪奪的生意經營上，起了推波助瀾的作用。近年香港社會上上下下已為資本家控制，經營環境自由盡失，資本家的醜陋面貌早於無意間流露。 

去周五《經濟學人》發表論香港經濟前世今生的長文〈實驗的終結〉，歷數殖民者留下的「自由」相繼失去，香港快成為佛利民的「失樂園」……。事實上，「自由放任」的好處已隨英國人歸國而告一段落，那並非英國人深謀遠慮的安排，而是一種政策行之太久必生破壞性副作用，便如貫徹財政政策日久惡性通脹必至，落實自由放任學說日久則財閥坐大且貧富兩極深化。 

「西哲」說年輕人大多傾向社會主義，成熟後大都成為資本主義信徒。筆者的思想歷程剛相反；這三四十年看到太多不公平現象，思想自然微微向左傾斜！

----------------------------------------

（附錄） 令林行止有感而發的IMF研究/反思文章Neoliberalism: Oversold?：

經濟學家伸「兩手」答不知道

被問如何解釋全球股市過往兩星期暴跌，你若搞不清楚，可簡單答「不知道」三個字，也可以效法頂尖經濟師Olivier Blanchard寫千字文表達「不知道」。

- Olivier Blanchard: The Price of Oil, China, and Stock market Herding

So how much should we worry? This is where economics stops giving an answer. Or, more specifically, where it gives the dreaded two-handed answer. If it becomes clear within a few days or a few weeks that fundamentals are in fact not so bad, stock prices will recover, just as they did last summer, and this will be seen as a hiccup. If, however, the stock market slump lasts longer or gets worse, it can become self-fulfilling. ... One has to hope for the first scenario, but worry about the second.

他的說法看似可笑，其實未必。Olivier Blanchard畢竟是有堅實學問根底的經濟師，還未搞清楚的就伸「兩手」（the two-handed answer）說不知道，只是有點長篇大論而已。若是天天出鏡的股壇明燈，他必定會答，我知道我知道。

從第一桶金就不乾淨，呆下來夜長夢多

近日讀了不少「中國經濟大衰退」的文章，童大煥這篇「中國或將面臨大衰退，你準備好了嗎？」不算突出，但我欣賞這段：

福無雙至，禍不單行。在中國大陸人口生育率不可避免地下降的同時，是現有青壯年人口尤其是精英人群的海外大移民。薛湧在《中國的海外移民大潮》一文中寫道：《華爾街日報》最近在一篇關於中國移民的長篇報導中引用香港一位移民專家的話說，到2020年，離開中國的人累計將有兩億!《華爾街日報》還提出了一個更為發人深省的問題：在歷史上，崛起的大國從來是吸引外來移民的磁石。中國怎麼越是崛起人口越外流?《華爾街日報》採訪了若干中國企業家和有關專家，得出這麼一條結論：法制不健全，企業家發家，可鑽的空子很多。但是，一旦發起來後，過去讓自己受益的制度，就成了對自身利益的威脅。一是這種制度保護不了自己的權益；但更重要的是，從第一桶金就不乾淨，呆下來還是夜長夢多。

「法制不健全，企業家發家，可鑽的空子很多。但是，一旦發起來後，過去讓自己受益的制度，就成了對自身利益的威脅。一是這種制度保護不了自己的權益；但更重要的是，從第一桶金就不乾淨，呆下來還是夜長夢多。」可圈可點！

Bluffing your way through discussions on Capital in 21C

After reading the book's introduction, Solow's review, and Fox's summary, one should be well-equipped to bluffing one's way through any intelligent discussions on Thomas Piketty's hugely popular# Capital in the Twenty-First Century (almost 700 pages thick!)


- Thomas Piketty/Harvard University Press: From the Introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty*

- Robert Solow: Thomas Piketty Is Right - Everything you need to know about 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century'

- Justin Fox: Piketty’s “Capital,” in a Lot Less than 696 Pages


# The physical book is currently sold out in Amazon. See Marc Tracy: Piketty's 'Capital': A Hit That Was, Wasn't, Then Was Again

* The book's introductory chapter is actually longer, including more technical/personal sections such as The Sources Used in This Book; The Major Results of This Study; Forces of Convegence, Forces of Divergence; and The Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

成衣出口，中國不再獨大？

中國不再是成衣出口獨大王國的例證？

今早買了三條便宜褲子，回家看看，發現竟無一made in china。有趣的是，三條分別在三個國家製造：柬埔寨，印尼和埃及。

中國離岸金融解密（國際調查記者同盟 ICIJ）

国际调查记者同盟（ICIJ）：中国离岸金融解密

两万多名中国内地及香港投资者在避税天堂注册公司

美国一家独立新闻组织取得的机密档案和资料库显示，中国高层领导的近亲在加勒比海避税天堂持有隐秘的离岸公司，有助中共精英在海外隐藏巨额财富。

调查中的重要发现有：

● 资料显示，至少有五名现任与前任中共中央政治局常委的亲属在英属维尔京群岛和库克群岛等离岸金融中心持有离岸公司，其中包括现任国家主席习近平、上届国务院总理温家宝及李鹏、上届国家主席胡锦涛以及已故领导人邓小平。

● 普华永道、瑞银集团、瑞信集团等会计事务所和欧美银行扮演了关键性的中间人角色，为中国投资者在英属维尔京群岛、萨摩亚群岛等离岸金融中心开设资产信托（trust）和公司。

● 发生了多起贪腐丑闻的中国石油业与离岸中心有密切联系。中国三大石油国企中石油、中石化和中海油与ICIJ密档中的数十家BVI（英属维尔京群岛）公司有关联。

● 中国经济转型为社会主义和资本主义混合体后，成为以隐蔽、避税和方便国际贸易著称的海外避税天堂的主要客户。

1月23日，ICIJ将会公布离岸金融解密数据库中37,000多名来自中国内地、香港和台湾的离岸资产持有人名单。在我们的网站数据库搜索人名，就可以看到与此人相关的离岸网络 。

- 机密文件披露中国精英的海外资产

- 中国：谁在使用离岸避税天堂

- 中国领导层亲属持有离岸秘密资产

- 机密档案表明中国石油贪污或与避税天堂有关

- 中国离岸金融解密：我们如何进行报道

- （英文版） ICIJ: Leaked Records Reveal Offshore Holdings of China’s Elite



- 中国数字时代：国信办：中国秘密离岸避税港解密 | 离岸资产丑闻：中国屏蔽国际调查记者联盟及《卫报》等新闻网站 | 【网络民议】下水摸石头 离岸藏财富
- BBC中文网：新闻背景：国际调查记者同盟
- 蘋果日報：ICIJ網站微博遭封殺 《明報》改組同協查有關？ | 關於ICIJ的報道（內地媒體人 沈渝）
- 何清涟：让世界认识一个盗贼型政权-《中国离岸金融报告解密》的意义

- GFW Blog：中国在“离岸报道”后大量封锁外媒网站
- DW在线报导："离岸解密"背后是谁？

“离岸解密”（Offshore-Leaks）原指全球金融机构在避税天堂生意运作的秘密数据。2012年，一名匿名人士向位于华盛顿的国际调查记者同盟（ICIJ）发送了总共260GB的秘密文件。这便是"离岸解密"项目的开始。由于数据过于庞大，国际调查记者同盟决定，邀请全球记者一道进行整理。参与这一项目的有《南德意志报》、北德意志电视台以及其他国家的50多个媒体机构伙伴，其中包括香港《明报》。

记者在分析数据的过程中发现，离岸数据中的12多万皮包公司牵涉到13万管理人以及公司所有者，而他们当中四分之一使用华裔姓名。鉴于数据海量以及可能带来的震撼性，记者同盟再次决定将"大中华"部分分割出来单独作为一个项目。

2013年夏季，来自北京、台北、纽约、华盛顿、马德里以及慕尼黑等地的记者聚集香港，就这项高度敏感的调查报道项目举行会晤，接下来的查证与报道阶段持续了6个月。其间，一家中国媒体机构退出。

记者从香港返回各地之后，他们之间的联络信息都是加密文件。他们为分享信息而使用的一个网上论坛也是加密的。联络过程中，中国领导人的名字都是使用的代码。

调查发现，在这些离岸资产持有者中，至少有15名是中国的顶级富豪、国企高管、中国现任或前任领导人的亲属。据参与调查的《南德意志报》报道，自2000年以来，从中国大陆外移的资产高达4万亿美元，而一个普通中国公民正常情况下每年只能将最多5万美元带到国外。调查中记者向相关政府官员等均发函请其回应，但绝大部分没有回复。

- 明報：密檔證溫家寶婿擁BVI公司——轉售股份涉溫家好友，曾向摩通收千萬顧問費 | 另揭公司與瑞銀有商業關係 | 國際調查記者同盟 專揭政府腐敗事
- 明報（長平）：加勒比海的一塊紅布
- 明報（陸克曼）：掘金者還是掘糞者？

明報的標準從一開始就很明確，擁有一間離岸公司不等於有問題。我們若要揭發醜聞，一定要有文件證實到可疑交易，或是未公開披露的離岸公司。然而事與願違，經過兩三個月的地氈式搜索，我們的確在數據庫裏發現了一些令人興奮的熟悉名字，但大多礙於資料有限，無法找到相關公司有任何可疑交易，亦或是早已公開申報披露過。於是我們便進行了更為痛苦的一步：捨棄。上周三出版的有關「中國精英」的離岸公司信息披露中，不乏中央政治局現任或前任委員的親屬。在這些人當中，只有溫家寶的家族成員的信息較為清晰的指向了可疑的利益輸送，於是我們集中寫了溫家，捨棄了其他令人興奮的名字。

這一選擇也許並不能為讀者所理解，甚至也不一定能為國外的合作伙伴理解，卻是我們權衡各種利弊的決定。去年新一屆中央政府上台後，雖然高調反腐，但同時對倡導「官員財產公示制度」等公民運動持不容置疑的打擊態度。明報無論在中國新聞還是港聞上，從不曾迴避過政治敏感的題目。然而，作為一個社會中的私營機構，即使編輯部多年來保持獨立自主，亦不可能完全沒有受到過來自外界的壓力。對我們來說，尤其是「扒糞」式的報道，若整個調查求證過程哪怕是有個一環節的遺漏，我們就寧願打住不出，擱置待做進一步求證。所以有同事曾調侃「我們的標準高過《紐約時報》的」，乍聽起來彷彿自我感覺良好，其實背後是在狹窄空間裏奮戰的無奈。

頗具有嘲諷意味的是，當我們將要出版這個系列的調查報道之際，恰逢明報爆發撤換主編風波，調查團隊亦一度擔心報道會遭到擱置，惟最後有驚無險。然而我冒著被指摘為「麥卡錫主義」的風險，仍然無法消除對這樣的「扒糞」工程是否還能進行的擔心。明報近年投入資源支持我們一班「扒糞者」，卻面對愈來愈大的多方壓力。首先香港讀者不一定願意為這些昂貴又枯燥的扒糞買單，公信力跌至中文報紙第二似乎再次證明「扒糞者」的一廂情願。其次，網絡信息的擠壓導致傳統媒體模式的漸漸消亡，「扒糞」工程的資源也逐漸吃緊。再加上無可避免的政治壓力，「扒糞」記者的工作亦愈來愈不討喜。雖然在內心最深處我仍然相信，通過深度調查，將涉及公眾利益的醜聞公之於眾事實上是在掘金，但愈來愈少的支持聲音，愈來愈稀薄的受眾，讓我開始想自己到底是在掘金還是真在扒糞？

- The Guardian: China's princelings storing riches in Caribbean offshore haven


--------------------

Search the Offshore Leaks Data

--------------------

Cualquier Sistema 無視我們意願建立的任何制度必被推倒

Leonard Cohen的一首反詩Any System，向來讀者不多，也談不上引起過什麼社會迴響。

Any system you contrive without us

will be brought down

We warned you before

and nothing that you built has stood

Hear it as you lean over your blueprint

Hear it as you roll up your sleeve

Hear it once again

Any system you contrive without us

will be brought down

You have your drugs

You have your guns

You have your Pyramids your Pentagons

With all your grass and bullets

you cannot hunt us any more

All that we disclose of ourselves forever

is this warning

Nothing that you built has stood

Any system you contrive without us

will be brought down

（Any System來自他1972年出版的詩集The Energy of Slaves。Cohen告訴當權者：無視我們意願建立的任何制度，必被推倒。不是沒有警告過你，而你也知道，過往築起來的無一尚存）


在2007年的一張致敬演唱會大碟Acordes Con Leonard Cohen（According to Leonard Cohen，演唱會全本）中，Constantino Romero以西班牙文吟詩 ...


... 竟令Cualquier Sistema在其後亂紛紛慘兮兮的地球上成為有力抗爭詩！














還有Anonymous版




Any System，是時候來個中譯版，到處吟唱了！

無視我們意願建立的任何制度必被推倒

堂堂彭博，怎麼搞這種中學生水平不文圖？！

看來還是封面圖呢！


彭博商業周刊 / 中文版

第4期開篇《從輝煌到衰落⋯⋯對沖基金好景不再》

大好錢圖！

（下月底要到日本北海道/東京玩了）

（臉書討論） 讀 Michael Sandel ，從何入手？

久仰Michael Sandel大名。但從他的新書What Money Can't Buy開始讀Sandel，很難理解他有何了得。

此書除了簡明易讀，例子超多（有點像將一次演講增補而成），一切都是那麼老生常談，了無新意。

（有機會還是會讀那交口稱譽的Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?)

--------------------

KL： 最吾 common 的，就是所謂的 common sense

曾堯： 這書你覺得如何？我是Sandel新丁，有點失望。

曾堯： 感覺Sandel在說，把人世間一切事情市場化，很有問題，讀者們，你們也想想這題目吧。作為一次演講或一篇雜誌文章，還好。寫成一本書，過於空洞了。

曾堯： 在書的最後部分，Acknowledgements頁中，Sandel的確提到了此書源頭來自他早前的（牛津大學及BBC Radio 4）演講。

曾堯：

If I ruled the world: Michael Sandel

If I ruled the world, I would rewrite the economics textbooks. ... Today, we often confuse market reasoning for moral reasoning. We fall into thinking that economic efficiency—getting goods to those with the greatest willingness and ability to pay for them—defines the common good. But this is a mistake.

KL： Although most are 老生常談， but its good to remind us some issues we seldom or avoid to face in daily life. You should read "Justice : what's the right thing to do" first, I think

曾堯： 可能市場批判的書看了很多，覺得Sandel的沒甚麼added value吧。那我去找他的Justice來讀。

KL： Actually you can watch his speech on YouTube

曾堯： Harvard上傳的演講系列嗎？


AC： 我自己都鍾意justice多d，其後兩本有點為績集而續集的感覺。

XZ： 我總覺得講義不應該直接成書。二者是不同的。justice的課堂視頻我看了幾集，有些意思的。但書我不會看。

曾堯： 原來大家都看過了Justice講壇，我要急起直追了。

VL： Read "Justice", the book last year. Liked it but not sure about "If I Ruled the World". May be should read it to find out.

--------------------

Open Culture: Michael Sandel’s Famous Harvard Course on Justice Launches as a MOOC on Tuesday (Tuesday = 12 March 2012)

London (A Special Report from The Economist)

Leader: A precarious brilliance

Special Report: London - On a high

Why Nations Fail, and why seemingly prosperous China could still fail?

Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail

- The Preface

This book is about the huge differences in incomes and standards of living that separate the rich countries of the world, such as the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, from the poor, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and South Asia.

- The Blog

Daron Acemoglu on Why Nations Fail (from CATO)


James Robinson on Why Nations Fail (from RSA)

--------------------

Selected Book Reviews

- Paul Collier: Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson – review

That states need order to prosper is important but no longer controversial. That they need inclusive institutions is, in view of China's success, wildly controversial. Their argument is that order without inclusive institutions may enable an economy to escape poverty, but will not permit the full ascent to modern prosperity. Their explanation is that if the institutions of power enable the elite to serve its own interest – a structure they term "extractive institutions" – the interests of the elite come to collide with, and prevail over, those of the mass of the population.

So, if inclusive institutions are necessary, how do they come about? Again, Acemoglu and Robinson are radical. They argue that there is no natural process whereby rising prosperity in an autocracy evolves into inclusion. Rather, it is only in the interest of the elite to cede power to inclusive institutions if confronted by something even worse, namely the prospect of revolution. The foundations of prosperity are political struggle against privilege.

Francis Fukuyama: Acemoglu and Robinson on Why Nations Fail

Given their overall framework, the hardest thing for AR to explain is contemporary China. China today according to them is more inclusive than Maoist China, but still far from the standard of inclusion set by the US and Europe, and yet has been the fastest growing large country over the past three decades. The Chinese restrict access to the market, engage in financial repression, fail to secure property rights, have no Western-style rule of law, and are ruled by a non-transparent oligarchy called the Communist Party. How to explain their economic success? Rather than see this as a threat to their model (i.e., more inclusion, more growth) AR pull a slight of hand by arguing that Chinese growth won’t last and that their system will eventually come crashing down (like Rome did, after about 200 years?). I actually agree that China will eventually crash. But even if that happens, a theory of development that can’t really explain the most remarkable growth story of our time is not, it seems to me, much of a theory.

- Thomas Friedman: Why Nations Fail

“Why Nations Fail” argues that the key differentiator between countries is “institutions.” Nations thrive when they develop “inclusive” political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become “extractive” and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few.

“Inclusive economic institutions that enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investments in new technologies and skills are more conducive to economic growth than extractive economic institutions that are structured to extract resources from the many by the few,” they write.

“Inclusive economic institutions, are in turn supported by, and support, inclusive political institutions,” which “distribute political power widely in a pluralistic manner and are able to achieve some amount of political centralization so as to establish law and order, the foundations of secure property rights, and an inclusive market economy.” Conversely, extractive political institutions that concentrate power in the hands of a few reinforce extractive economic institutions to hold power.

- William Easterly: The Roots of Hardship

- Clive Crook: ‘Why Nations Fail’ Is Not Quite as Good as They Say

- Jared Diamond: What Makes Countries Rich or Poor?

My overall assessment of the authors’ argument is that inclusive institutions, while not the overwhelming determinant of prosperity that they claim, are an important factor. Perhaps they provide 50 percent of the explanation for national differences in prosperity. That’s enough to establish such institutions as one of the major forces in the modern world. Why Nations Fail offers an excellent way for any interested reader to learn about them and their consequences. Whereas most writing by academic economists is incomprehensible to the lay public, Acemoglu and Robinson have written this book so that it can be understood and enjoyed by all of us who aren’t economists.

Why Nations Fail should be required reading for politicians and anyone concerned with economic development. The authors’ discussions of what can and can’t be done today to improve conditions in poor countries are thought-provoking and will stimulate debate. Donors and international agencies try to “engineer prosperity” either by foreign aid or by urging poor countries to adopt good economic policies. But there is widespread disappointment with the results of these well-intentioned efforts. Acemoglu and Robinson pithily diagnose the cause of these disappointing outcomes in their final chapter: “Attempting to engineer prosperity without confronting the root cause of the problems—extractive institutions and the politics that keeps them in place—is unlikely to bear fruit.”

2012.02 觀讀聽流水帳

讀書

Nicholas Wapshott, Keynes/Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics
- 非常無聊的“對決”經濟學故仔書，讀不下去。

● Raymond Carver, Where I'm Calling From
- 選讀了幾篇，很欣賞，會繼續讀下去。

● 蔡瀾 蔡瀾歎名菜

● 宮本輝 錦繡 （重讀）
- 嚴重失憶

● 乙一 GOTH斷掌事件


電影

● 荒戶源次郎 人間失格
- 電影《人間失格》

● 蕭雅全 第36個故事


音樂

● Metis 人間失格
- 不斷拷問自己 是個自暴自棄的人嗎

John Cassidy on Keynes and Now

John Cassidy:

The Demand Doctor - What would John Maynard Keynes tell us to do now—and should we listen?

Where is the new Keynes?

--------------------

Btw, what would Dr Hayek prescribe?

David Glasner: Hayek on Monetary Policy and Unemployment