The idea of economic man, sometimes given a Latin nomenclature to increase its gravitas, is the real cause of economics’ more recent failures. Forty years ago it was referred to as a nineteenth century idea, as though the study of economics had moved on since that primitive Victorian era. But with Friedman’s shareholder primacy in the ascendancy with its supporting “theories” of agency, transaction costs and the market in corporate management, economic man resurged and is still dominant today, and wreaking its massive destruction.
All posts by Gordon Pearson
Unpicking Shareholder Primacy
The idea that companies, if not all economic activity, exists to maximise the wealth of shareholders or owners, dominates the world of corporate governance and much else. Bankers and traders believe it. Industrial managers have been led to accept it. Universities and business schools preach it. It is part of the free market ideology, often identified by its origins, as the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American approach. And its many adherents claim it is the only system that really works. Shareholder value is, for them, the acid test, all that matters. All this is despite clear evidence to the contrary from Germany, Japan, China, India and many other jurisdictions.
Much of the literature on corporate governance argues that these other approaches are in fact converging on the Anglo-American model and even assesses the level of their maturity in terms of how closely they comply with the Anglo-American line. It’s all nonsense.
Don’t ask “Mr Moneybags” how to run the economy
As Nobel laureate Paul Krugman pointed out ‘a country is not a business’. So why, he asked, do politicians think it is sensible to ask a successful businessman for advice on running the country? Why, for example, is David Cameron asking Sir Philip Green for his input? His views are clear and predictable, and of no relevance to running a successful economy.
Continue reading Don’t ask “Mr Moneybags” how to run the economy
Cut or Spend? Fad or Strategy?
Before the British coalition government’s proposed cuts were announced they were greeted by 39 top business people writing to the Daily Telegraph confirming that they would create the necessary jobs so as to make the public sector cuts work. That way tax rises might be avoided and long-term cuts in public sector activity achieved. For them, any reduction in tax and spend would be a Good Thing. Well, business people would say that, wouldn’t they! But were they expressing a seriously thought through strategy, or merely expressing the currently dominant free market fad?
Moral Responsibilities of Corporate Officials
The corporate monster is destroying the world, tearing up its soil to gobble up its precious resources, fouling its air, polluting its water and damaging its climate, while rewarding the few with untold riches, but leaving the masses in poverty. That’s how things work, unless they are prevented. Free-market ideology is having a hard time right now. But maybe not hard enough.
Continue reading Moral Responsibilities of Corporate Officials
What are they Laughing About?
A few weeks ago a happy group photograph was published to accompany the announcement of Bob Diamond’s appointment as the new CEO of Barclays bank. The picture showed outgoing CEO John Varley and Diamond himself, both apparently chortling with delight, while chairman Marcus Agius offered a slightly more discreet smile of approval. What were they laughing about?
Continue reading What are they Laughing About?
Ultra-Fast Destruction of Real Economy Firms
Around 80% of publicly quoted shareholdings are now controlled by financial institutions, rather than the end shareholders. The traders acting for these institutions have quite different objectives from those of the ultimate shareholders. Members of a company pension scheme, for example, are likely to have a personal desire for the survival and longevity of their employing company. However, unbeknown to them, the investment decisions made on their behalf for their pension fund, are made on the basis of short term gains, which may well be best served by the acquisition and break up of that same company and the redundancy of most of its employees. But it is worse than that.
Continue reading Ultra-Fast Destruction of Real Economy Firms
What Good Did Economics Ever Do?
The question really is what good did economics ever do that isn’t readily available from common sense? Economics has real world impact (“we are ruled by little else” as Keynes famously said), but where it leads to an impact which is distinctive from one which would result from applied common sense, the impact appears to be invariably bad. Of course, definitions of bad may be subjective. It could have two quite separate meanings: bad in the sense that it is counterproductive in its own terms, most usually this would mean damaging to economic growth; or bad in that it does more harm than good in such dimensions as fairness and justice. Examples of bad impacts might include free market economics resulting in great injustice and inequality as well as the creation of inevitably bursting bubbles.
How has the crisis changed economics?
The Economist, an increasingly dogmatic apologist for the free market ideology, invited for its current issue, six academic economists to identify how they thought the financial crisis had changed the subject of economics. The answer is not a lot. So far as methods of teaching and research are concerned, nothing has changed, or is likely to change any time soon.
Vince Cable’s Fight
Vince Cable’s closing speech to the Lib-Dem’s first in-government conference has been greeted by City and business types as ‘intemperate’, as ‘emotional language’ and ‘playing to the gallery’. But he is surely right to suggest that good real economy businesses are being destroyed for the short term gain of City speculators and their ‘accomplices’ who make fat fees from takeover deals. Cable is merely making a statement of truth, which has been highlighted several times on this site regarding particular situations such as the Kraft takeover of Cadbury.
Moreover, he is also right to suggest that, left to its own devices, capitalism tends to the establishment of monopolistic positions. Again, as is highlighted elsewhere on this site, you can have free markets, or you can have competitive markets. But you can’t have both. Competition has to be protected, or it will be destroyed by those same speculators and their accomplices.
Fighting for Fairness by Remaking the Real Economy 