We have nothing to fear but the fear of Brexit itself

British people are being told that there are two ways to approach Brexit, and they have to choose between them. An ideological way or a pragmatic way. Guided by formal principle or by practical necessity.

Catherine Barnard, professor of European Union law at Trinity College Cambridge, described the apparent options as follows: ‘You either have to prioritise sovereignty and domestic control, which has very significant economic costs; or you have to be more pragmatic and put a priority on your economic interests. A decision will have to be taken.’

So this is a stark choice, apparently, between sovereignty and economic livelihoods. The implication is that people shouldn’t be so stupid as to bring on economic deterioration resulting from a stubborn attachment to something as pretentious as wanting to ‘take back control’ over their nation and lives.

It is important that we cut through this presentation of Brexit. Read the full article here.

 

Sorry, Corbyn, but ‘anti-austerity’ is not enough

Another unexpected election result, this time brought about by Theresa May’s patronising, ill-considered and visionless campaign, invites traditional as well as new thinking. And when an election outcome is inconclusive, it becomes even easier to read into it your own established opinions. One interpretation, as suggested by Labour Party figures in particular, but also by some Tories, is that this was a vote ‘against austerity’. Of course, many people have in recent years been experiencing more sharply the material effects of our longest economic depression. But it is fanciful to assess the result as a positive vote against austerity.

Read the full article here.

We need big, bold economic thinking in the Brexit era

It was predicted that UK chancellor Philip Hammond’s final spring Budget would be low-key and short on exciting announcements. Cautious and careful was the expectation. Leaving aside for a moment the row over tax increases for the self-employed, these expectations were broadly met. But that doesn’t mean the Budget was an insignificant event.

The Budget provided a revealing insight into the current state of politics.

The article is here.

The economicisation of a depoliticised public life

In my forthcoming book Creative destruction I describe the way that economic policy has been depoliticised since the 1980s. The fatalist perspective associated with Margaret Thatcher’s TINA – ‘there is no alternative’ – applied as much as anywhere to the workings of the market economy. The acceptance of TINA indicated the demise of left-right political contestation for changing and improving society through differently organised economic systems.

Politicians of all stripes embraced this TINA outlook and reduced the scope of economic policy to managing the economy. The primary goal was ensuring stability. Much of this management function was assigned to technocrats, including souped-up regulators, expert-led commissions and central bankers. This outsourcing by politicians of their economic responsibilities to unaccountable bodies and institutions reinforced the conservationist, status quo orientation of economic policy that has proved so damaging to economic performance. Pro-stability measures have tended to stunt the functioning of creative destruction and helped entrench our zombie economy. Continue reading

Economists: culprits or scapegoats?

At the start of this year Andrew Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, declared that the economics profession was ‘to some degree in crisis’. He highlighted its ‘Michael Fish’ moment before the 2008-9 financial crash when most economists were as off the mark as the infamous BBC weather forecaster in anticipating an impending hurricane in 1987. Haldane went on to admit – ‘a fair cop’ – that economic experts at his own Bank, as at the IMF, the OECD and the Treasury, had seen their gloomy predictions of the effects of a vote for Brexit confounded by what actually happened. The economy continuing to run along pretty much as it had before the referendum, even ticking up a little as 2016 went on.

The clarity of Haldane’s mea culpa about economists getting their predictions wrong wasn’t matched by his explanation for why. Continue reading