Search This Blog

Showing posts with label free market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free market. Show all posts

Monday, 11 November 2024

From Thatcher to Trump and Brexit: my seven lessons learned after 28 years as Guardian economics editor

 The free market experiment has failed, free trade is out, and populism is rife but it can be defeated if the left can galvanise ideas into a credible plan writes Larry Elliott in The Guardian

Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and Nigel Lawson her chancellor of the exchequer. Neil Kinnock was leader of the Labour party. The iron curtain separated Europe.

Across the Atlantic, Ronald Reagan’s second term in the White House was drawing to a close. Donald Trump floated the idea that George Bush might want him as his running mate in the looming US presidential election, an overture Bush described as “strange and unbelievable”.

This was the political backdrop when I joined the Guardian in 1988 – the year before Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web, when mobile phones were in their infancy and the climate crisis was just starting to become a hot political issue.

It was a time when free market ideas ruled. A combination of high inflation and recession – stagflation – in the 1970s had led to a crisis of postwar social democracy and given rise to a new set of beliefs: privatisation, deregulation, tax cuts paid for by shrinking the state, curbs on the power of trade unions, the dismantling of capital controls. All this would give capitalism its mojo back, leading to wealth creation that would trickle down from those at the top to those struggling at the bottom.

Since this is my last column after more than 28 years as the Guardian’s economics editor, I thought I would devote it to some lessons learned during my time on the paper.

Lesson No 1 is that the free-market experiment has failed, as some of us said it would all along. Wealth did not trickle down, and instead the gap between the haves and the have-nots widened. The workers laid off when the factories closed in northern England and the US midwest did not find new well-paid jobs but were either thrown on the scrapheap or found low-paid insecure work in call centres and distribution warehouses.

Financial speculation ran rife once controls on capital were removed, but growth rates in the west were slower than in the postwar heyday of social democracy. Warnings of trouble ahead were ignored until the world’s banking system came close to collapse in the global financial crisis of 2008. At which point, policymakers abruptly ditched free-market values and rediscovered the virtues of state ownership, interventionist industrial strategies and demand management.

But only temporarily. Lesson No 2 is that ideas matter. The near death of the banks provided an opportunity to forge a new progressive approach to the economy in the shape of a Green New Deal, but it was not taken. In part, that was because various parts of the left – the Keynesians, the greens, the Marxists – all had differing views on what needed to be done. In part it was because the rich and powerful used their money and influence to stymie any hope of real change. In part, it was because of the timidity of parties of the left.

The upshot is that there has been no equivalent of the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of the 1980s, even though the crisis of neoliberalism in 2008 was just as profound as the collapse of social democracy in the 1970s. A form of zombie capitalism has staggered on for a decade and a half, kept alive by cheap money liberally provided by central banks. Ultra-low interest rates have failed to boost investment. Real wage growth has been nugatory.

Those at the sharp end of economic failure looked to parties of the left for answers to their concerns: low pay, job insecurity, run-down public services, a fear of crime, the consequences of mass immigration. What they got instead were lectures about the need to eat better, smoke and drink less, and to stop being such bigots.

Trump’s victory last week shows what happens when the left first abandons its natural supporters and then tells them what to think and behave. That’s lesson No 3: populism will continue to flourish until the left comes up with a credible and deliverable economic plan.

Trump won because he promised to give voters what they wanted rather than what America’s liberal elite thought they ought to want.

Trump’s impending return to the White House highlights a fourth lesson from the past 36 years: the world’s economic centre of gravity – symbolised by the emergence of China and India as forces to be reckoned with – has moved from west to east and from north to south. To be sure, China has some deep structural problems, but it has lifted 800 million people out of poverty since the late 1970s, has developed expertise in hi-tech manufacturing, and poses a bigger threat to US hegemony than the Soviet Union ever did. 

Lesson No 5 is that globalisation has gone into reverse. The new cold war between China and the US, the vulnerability of global supply chains exposed by the Covid pandemic, and voter demands that their political leaders reassert control over the economy are all leading to a revival of the nation state. Free trade is out; protectionism is in. Governments are responding to pressure to curb migration. Activist industrial strategies are back in vogue.

The European Union is finding adjustment to these new challenges difficult. That’s hardly surprising, given that the EU was – as Wolfgang Streeck notes in his book Taking Back Control? – the “perfect realisation” of post-communist neoliberal economic globalism: centralised, depoliticised, bureaucratic and wedded to free movement of people, goods, services and capital.

As the Guardian’s resident Eurosceptic, I have to say I have never seen anything especially attractive in the EU’s economic model. Nor can the project of ever-closer union remotely be called a success. The EU is sclerotic and seething with voter rage at the inability of its governments to raise living standards or control immigration.

So my sixth lesson is that those who say Brexit has failed are not just jumping the gun but need to look across the Channel, because that’s where the real failure lies. Brexit was to Britain what Trump’s victory was for the US: a revolt against the elites and a demand for change. It offers the chance for a party of the left to do things differently. Labour can seize that opportunity.

That’s not a conclusion, I am well aware, that most of my readers would agree with, but one of the joys of working for the Guardian is that it encourages – indeed welcomes – challenges to the orthodoxy.

So my final lesson from the past 36 years is this: it is always worth questioning the status quo. Just because something is the received wisdom doesn’t mean it is right.

Friday, 21 July 2023

A Level Economics 58: Government Intervention to correct Market Failures

Government intervention to correct market failures is based on the recognition that the free market mechanism, while generally efficient in resource allocation, can sometimes fail to produce socially desirable outcomes. Market failures arise due to various reasons, such as externalities, imperfect information, public goods, income inequality, and the presence of monopolies. To address these shortcomings and promote the well-being of society, governments may intervene through various policy measures. Let's evaluate the rationale for government intervention in correcting market failures:

  1. Externalities: Externalities, whether positive or negative, lead to divergences between private and social costs or benefits. When market participants do not fully consider the external effects of their actions, the market fails to allocate resources efficiently. Government intervention, such as imposing taxes or subsidies, can internalize externalities, aligning private incentives with societal welfare.

    Example: To reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change, governments may impose a carbon tax on industries that emit greenhouse gases. The tax internalizes the negative externality of pollution, incentivizing firms to reduce emissions and invest in cleaner technologies.


  2. Imperfect Information: Asymmetric information or imperfect information can lead to adverse selection, moral hazard, and market inefficiencies. Governments can play a role in providing information, regulating information disclosure, or enforcing standards to improve market transparency.

    Example: Consumer protection laws require sellers to disclose accurate information about their products to avoid deceptive practices. This ensures that consumers can make informed decisions and avoid potential harm from hidden risks.


  3. Public Goods: Public goods, such as national defense and street lighting, are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, making them unlikely to be provided adequately by the private sector. Government intervention is necessary to provide and fund public goods to ensure they are available for everyone's benefit.

    Example: Governments finance and maintain public infrastructure, like roads and parks, which benefit the entire community and cannot be efficiently provided by private businesses.


  4. Income Inequality: The free market may result in significant income disparities and poverty. Government intervention through progressive taxation and welfare programs can help redistribute wealth and provide a safety net for the less fortunate.

    Example: Progressive income tax rates tax higher incomes at a higher rate, aiming to reduce income inequality and fund social programs.


  5. Monopolies and Market Power: Unchecked market power can lead to reduced competition, higher prices, and reduced consumer choice. Government intervention can prevent and regulate monopolies to protect consumers and promote competition.

    Example: Antitrust laws prohibit anti-competitive practices and ensure fair competition, benefiting consumers and fostering innovation.


  6. Cyclical Fluctuations: Market economies are prone to business cycles, with periods of booms and recessions. Governments may implement fiscal and monetary policies to stabilize the economy and mitigate the adverse effects of economic fluctuations.

    Example: During economic downturns, governments may increase public spending or lower interest rates to stimulate demand and promote economic growth.

While government intervention is essential in correcting market failures, it is not without challenges. Policymakers must strike a balance between promoting efficiency and avoiding excessive intervention that may hinder market dynamics. Additionally, the effectiveness of government policies depends on the quality of governance, transparency, and public participation. Overall, a well-designed and targeted intervention can lead to a more inclusive, equitable, and efficient market system, benefitting society as a whole.

---On the Other Hand: Advocates of Free Markets

Advocates of free markets argue that government intervention to correct market failures can be inefficient and lead to unintended consequences. They contend that free markets are self-regulating, promote individual freedom, and create a more efficient allocation of resources without the need for government interference. Here are some of the key points made by advocates of free markets:

  1. Market Efficiency: Free markets, by their nature, tend to allocate resources efficiently through the price mechanism. They believe that individuals pursuing their self-interest in a competitive environment will lead to optimal outcomes for society.


  2. Consumer Sovereignty: Free markets allow consumers to make choices based on their preferences, promoting consumer sovereignty. As a result, businesses are incentivized to produce goods and services that cater to consumer demands.


  3. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Free markets encourage innovation and entrepreneurship by allowing individuals and businesses to take risks and reap the rewards of their efforts. They argue that government intervention may stifle innovation and disrupt market dynamics.


  4. Reduced Bureaucracy: Advocates of free markets argue that excessive government intervention creates bureaucracy and administrative inefficiencies, which can be counterproductive and hinder economic growth.


  5. Competition and Lower Prices: Free markets foster competition among businesses, leading to improved efficiency, lower costs, and competitive prices for consumers.


  6. Individual Freedom: Advocates emphasize individual freedom and limited government interference in economic matters, believing that individuals should have the autonomy to make their economic decisions.

Evaluation of Weaknesses:

While advocates of free markets present compelling arguments, there are significant weaknesses in their rationale:

  1. Market Failure Acknowledgment: Advocates of free markets often downplay or overlook market failures, such as externalities and imperfect information, which can lead to suboptimal outcomes. These market failures can have significant negative impacts on society and require government intervention to address.


  2. Inequality and Social Justice: Free markets may lead to income inequality, as the distribution of resources may become concentrated among a few wealthy individuals or corporations. This can result in social unrest and challenges in providing equal opportunities for all members of society.


  3. Public Goods and Collective Action Problem: Free markets cannot efficiently provide public goods that are essential for society but lack a profit motive. The underprovision of public goods, such as environmental protection or national defense, necessitates government involvement.


  4. Monopolies and Market Power: Advocates of free markets often overlook the potential for monopolies and abuse of market power. Unregulated monopolies can lead to reduced competition, higher prices, and diminished consumer choice.


  5. Short-Term Focus: Free markets tend to prioritize short-term gains and profits, potentially neglecting long-term investments and environmental sustainability.


  6. Externalities and Environmental Degradation: Free markets may not fully internalize negative externalities, leading to overconsumption of resources and environmental degradation, such as pollution and overexploitation of natural resources.


  7. Market Imperfections: In reality, perfectly competitive markets are rare. Market imperfections, such as information asymmetry and barriers to entry, can hinder competition and reduce market efficiency.

In conclusion, while advocates of free markets argue for minimal government intervention and rely on the efficiency of market mechanisms, there are several weaknesses in their arguments. Recognizing market failures and addressing issues related to inequality, public goods, monopolies, and environmental concerns require a balanced approach that includes appropriate government regulation and intervention. Striking the right balance between free markets and government involvement is essential to achieving the optimal outcomes for society as a whole.