Editorial, WSJ - The Wrong Economist Won
18 Oct 1998
Tushar J. Mehta @ieee.org
Editorial, on-line edition of The Wall Street Journal
October 15, 1998
The Wrong Economist Won
By ROBERT L. POLLOCK
We've grown used to seeing the Nobel Peace Prize go to terrorists (like
Yasser Arafat) and the Nobel Prize in literature to Marxists (seemingly
every winner). But the committee that picks the Nobel Memorial Prize in
Economic Science (established in 1968 by Sweden's central bank in memory of
Alfred Nobel) has been pretty sensible over the years, recognizing Milton
Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and other original thinkers for their
contributions to the field.
If they were looking for such a figure in the world of development economics
(the study of how economies grow), they might have picked Peter Bauer, who
for decades stood courageously and nearly alone against the misguided belief
that government aid has the primary role to play. Instead, they picked
Amartya Sen, master of Cambridge University's Trinity College, who was
remarkable (even before winning the Nobel yesterday) only for the extent to
which his renown outstripped the quality of his work. Throughout his long
career and voluminous writings, he has done little but give voice to the
muddleheaded views of the establishment leftists who dominate his world of
academics and nongovernmental organizations.
Amartya Sen
Where Mr. Sen's insights have been accurate--such as the observation that
famines don't necessarily arise from a lack of food--they have been
unremarkable. Famine usually has political causes, as anybody who watched
the Ethiopian government deliberately starving its people in the 1980s could
have figured out. Elsewhere, Mr. Sen has just been wrong. When it comes to
development economics, he focused on the importance of governments in
promoting growth and bringing about a more equitable distribution of
resources. But it has become clear over the years that those countries that
interfered least with their markets have done best, both in absolute terms
and in providing for the worst-off.
Perhaps it was the increasing amount of such evidence that eventually pushed
Mr. Sen into the field of philosophy in an attempt to give moral foundations
to political theories that economics wouldn't support. He bases his 1992
book, "Inequality Reexamined," on the observation that theories of justice
that are not "egalitarian" in some sense will be seen as arbitrarily
discriminatory and thus hard to defend. Then, through conflation and
obfuscation, he attempts to put forward a theory of "freedom" of which
Orwell's Big Brother would have been proud.
Instead of trying to cut a middle path between left and right, Mr. Sen tries
to reconcile left and left--that is, those welfare liberals who emphasize
equality of "opportunity" (and thus favor limited redistribution schemes)
and those radicals who believe nothing less than equality of "capability"
will do (something that, as Kurt Vonnegut recognized in the story "Harrison
Bergeron," would require the deliberate handicapping of talented people).
Mr. Sen, being an expert in the kind of quibbling or "problematizing" on
which far too many students base doctoral dissertations, makes it hard to
pin down his view, though he seems to lean toward the latter position.
Of course, no one can expect to agree with every award. (Hayek was famously
unhappy about sharing his Nobel with Swedish socialist Gunnar Myrdal.) And
the Nobel Prize in economics has attained such stature that it may be
difficult to find a worthy recipient every year. But it would be nice to see
the committee recognize that from time to time by refusing to give an award,
rather than default to someone of such debatable merit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Mr. Pollock is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
21 Oct 1998
Tushar J. Mehta @ieee.org
Thanks for your reply. However, your coments need to be directed to the
appropriate user IDs -
WSJ editor - [email protected]
Interact Inn All India Mailing List - [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: S.V.Ramani
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 10:59 AM
Subject: WSJ view of Dr.Sen's Nobel price.
>Not a surprise.
>You can not blame WSJ for not being able do any thing better than to
>manage to get some one who can not see beyond his nose!
>If some one who can instill fear and insecurity in the minds of of the
>occupational forces is a terrorist (Yassar AFT) then so was George
>Washington, so was Abe Lincon and so was MK Gandhi!.The biggest terrorist
>in vogue today is the US Government. The trouble is that the US
>Institutions are so obsessed with Left that one day they may even ban all
>base ball pitchers pitching left.If Miton Friedman can be decorated for his
>junkey market forces approach why not some others who think otherwise.
>After all Economics is an abstract belief where ever one has an theory for
>every thing that happens in the economy and nothing can be proved one way
>or another---it is n't a science. The trouble my friend is not Dr. Sen's
>theories and competence-----it is his color that bothers WSJ.
>
>
>S.V.Ramani
>Enercon CandE, B 602, Riverdale, 4th Main Road Extn
>Kotturgardens, Madras, India 600085
>Fax 91 44 4344500/ 2350305 Tel 91 44 4419862
>[email protected]
21 Oct 1998
R Krishnan @webindia.com
Tushar J. Mehta wrote:
> development economics, he focused on the importance of governments in
> promoting growth and bringing about a more equitable distribution of
> resources. But it has become clear over the years that those countries that
> interfered least with their markets have done best, both in absolute terms
> and in providing for the worst-off.
Hi All,
Chandrababu Naidu was very clear in this aspect. Goverment should
invest only where private sector investment is not possible. For ex
Taiwan is an export oriented economy. When global imports fell, Taiwan
has also suffered. The govt of Taiwan has started so many public
projects like roads, airports, etc so that there will be rotation of
money.
regds
Chief Access Facilitator
WebIndia - Welcome to Business in India
http://www.webindia.com/
22 Oct 1998
gkurien @success.net
Ramani,
The trouble is not only just the color and
how the retina perceives color etc.,.,.
But a misplaced 'sense of superiority by some
individuals who exist in the Western civilisation.
They do not like to acknowledge the existence
of any other civilisation.
I would not attribute this all westerners but only
those who cannot see beyond the tip of their
noses!!
G-
22 Oct 1998
gkurien @success.net
>Hi All,
> Chandrababu Naidu was very clear in this aspect. Goverment should
>invest only where private sector investment is not possible. For ex
>Taiwan is an export oriented economy. When global imports fell, Taiwan
>has also suffered. The govt of Taiwan has started so many public
>projects like roads, airports, etc so that there will be rotation of
>money.
We should compare more with countries such as China,
because, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, etc., only have
a population which we can 'count on our fingers' (so
to speak.)
Basically, I believe that the Indian genius can blossom
if we get off our hinds and do our daily work on 'time'.
G-
regds
Chief Access Facilitator
WebIndia - Welcome to Business in India
http://www.webindia.com/
22 Oct 1998
ANKIT GAUR @giasmda.vsnl.net.in
It is indeed very sad to see that a newspaper of such repute has such
comments to make about the decision to award Mr Sen the prize.This matter
should be taken up seriously.
Ankit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HomePage:home.talkcity.com/WazzupWay/coolden
22 Oct 1998
gkurien @success.net
>It is indeed very sad to see that a newspaper of such
>repute has such comments to make about the decision to award Mr Sen
>the prize.This matter should be taken up seriously.
Not to worry Ankit,
some caucasians believe in the
existence of only 'western' civilisation.
Forturnately, however, many other
wiser ones believe otherwise!!
George.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HomePage:home.talkcity.com/WazzupWay/coolden
23 Oct 1998
[email protected]
Mr G,
What an appropriate statement!!! I am sure it needs guts to say that.
Come On! Indians. Get up. Work for your own country.
Indians travel to other countries and these host counties prosper
on Indian brain, sweat and knowledge.
Let us all pledge to do our bit.
Best wishes to the great population of a great country!!!
25 Oct 1998
sri @usa.net
Well I am not quite aware of Amartya Sen's work, but the comments made
in the WSJ by Mr Pollock seem to be general enough. His arguments seem
to be those, which I had argued so many times against, during the days
when I was doing my masters.
Firstly, the kind of "Keynesian" economics which Mr Pollock swears by,
has an implicit assumption that each of the participants has at least a
little something which he can use to trade with others. But, as I know
it, Prof Sen's work concerns "welfare economics", the economics of
people who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to trade. The notion that a
capitalist economy "trickles down" benefit to the worst off, has already
been challenged by a number of system thinkers like Fritjopf Capra.
Every economic model or simulation which explains "free market" or
capitalist economics has this statement-- "each player starts with an
initial amount of money". This very statement makes a large amount of
people out of the economic game in countries like India having absolute
poverty.
The "muddleheads" -- as Mr Pollock puts it -- of the academia or non
governmental organizations, in effect provide the "starting money" for
these people to participate in the "free" economic game. Just imagine,
how can a road worker in India, who cannot afford to spend time in
thinking or reflection, lest he loses his daily earnings, participate in
a game of trade and make wise decisions? The kind of participants we are
talking about are those who will not have anything to eat even if they
missed a single day's of work, if the day is spoilt due to weather, if
there is political disturbance...
Once we try to profile the lives of these participants, it is only
imperative that the factor of philosophy or morality comes into the
picture. In fact, morality would be the "driving force" of welfare
economies, rather than it being some sort of an after thought.
By the word "economics", Mr Pollock seems to only consider economics of
large organizations, or economics among people who have something to
start by. But it is a very simple notion of mathematics that any
function which adds onto itself, thus providing a non linearly
increasing function, does not work if the starting value is 0.
I don't know why, on the one hand, the west is neurotically obsessed
against governmental interference, and on the other, the US is a country
with one of the largest number of federal laws in the world!
Comments Welcome
Srinath
25 Oct 1998
sri @usa.net
Sorry for the double post-- after reading Mr Pollock's article, I must
confess that I had a small doubt as to whether he was actually right.
But, I came across this interview with Prof Sen, in India Today, where
the following questions were especially interesting--
<< Q. You've often regretted India's lapses in addressing education, health and land reforms. Would you suggest reforms to be put on hold to catch up with the lag? The answer is that they should not be put on hold. Rather the process of economic reform and that of expanding social opportunities should be carried out simultaneously, with a lot more energy in the expansion of social opportunities than has been given to it in the past. But that is no argument for putting economic reform on hold. Q. Do you still support centralised planning of the economy? A. I was never a supporter of centrally planned economies. I have always taken the view that the state has a role and the market has a role, that planning has a role and economic incentives have a role. I have also taken the view that democracy and human rights are not only extremely important on their own, they are also important as part of social change and economic development. I don't think my position about the role of the state and the market, of planning and incentives, has really changed over the years at all.>>
At the slightest mention of the role of the government or state in
economics, the west seems to cry out "left!", a synonym for "foul",
while these questions reveal that the ideas about the role of the state
in no way limits the "free" trade.
-srinath
27 Oct 1998
Ravi Talwar @blr.vsnl.net.in
sri wrote:
>
>
> Well I am not quite aware of Amartya Sen's work, but the comments made
> in the WSJ by Mr Pollock seem to be general enough. His arguments seem
> to be those, which I had argued so many times against, during the days
> when I was doing my masters.
>
(snip)
I must congratulate Srinath on an informative and balanced article on what
this "welfare economics" is all about.
I have not been one of those Indians who have been unduly elated by the
recogniton shown to Amartya Sen's work. It was a personal triumph. Very little
to do with India. I would have identified with his success more if he was
working in India and striving to make our lives here in India better. I doubt
whether any of our babus and netas have been much influenced with his work.
I have also not been much put off with the article in WSJ. After all, that
newspaper caters to that segment in the USA who are very well off financially,
and hence generally pro-free market in their thinking. An advocate of "welfare
economics" is bound to come across as a socialist and hence a threat to their
beliefs and way of life. But WSJ does not represent the mainstream thinking in
the USA, which is quite liberal. In my humble opinion, tarnishing everyone in
the USA as anti-this or that, based on this one article, is uncalled for.
Regards
Ravi Talwar
