by In the Boston Review, Dani Rodrik discusses neoliberalism and argues that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. Rodrik emphasizes that sound economics implies context specific policy recommendations. And therein lies the central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map onto a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher–Reagan-style agenda. But he also stresses that the principles [of economics] are not entirely content free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate their utility once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin
Topics:
Dirk Niepelt considers the following as important: Contributions, Economic policy, Economics, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Notes
This could be interesting, too:
Dirk Niepelt writes “Report by the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on the Conduct of the Authorities in the Context of the Emergency Takeover of Credit Suisse”
Claudio Grass writes “THE BIG BULL MARKET IN GOLD AND SILVER HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN”
Claudio Grass writes “THE BIG BULL MARKET IN GOLD AND SILVER HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN”
Claudio Grass writes The Heartland theory: More relevant than ever?
In the Boston Review, Dani Rodrik discusses neoliberalism and argues that
mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions.
Rodrik emphasizes that sound economics implies context specific policy recommendations.
And therein lies the central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map onto a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher–Reagan-style agenda.
But he also stresses that the
principles [of economics] are not entirely content free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate their utility once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of political leaders who chose to violate them.
In Rodrik’s view
[e]conomists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most suited to the task at hand.
I have argued elsewhere that the main job of economists is to create maps, not to choose among them. See also the earlier post on Ariel Rubinstein’s excellent discussion of Rodrik’s recent book.