Interessante artigo/resumo do debate sobre o futuro da economia. Falar com colegas de outros áreas de conhecimento é sempre uma boa idéia, mas antes o economista deveria conhecer melhor as diferentes escolas de pensamento econômico. A ignorancia sobre o passado leva vários a repetir os mesmos erros. Neste momento em que o mercado é objeto de critica feroz e nem sempre justa, o risco maior é, de fato, achar que o estado é a solução de todos os males do mundo.
Yesterday, I moderated a panel on “The Future of Economics”. The panel included two Nobel laureates in economics – Peter Diamond of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Joe Stiglitz of Columbia. (For pedants, this is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.) It also had Robert Shiller of Yale and Brian Arthur of the Santa Fe Institute. So it would be fair to say that the panel was packed.
Three of the participants are definitely of the so-called saltwater school of economics (sceptics of the efficiency of markets in all circumstances who live on the US coasts). Professor Arthur is even more heterodox than they: he is interested in the impact of technology and increasing returns. It would have been wonderful, however, also to have had a fully committed member of the “markets are always right unless governments mess them up” freshwater school, associated particularly with the University of Chicago.
It is impossible to summarise all of such a rich discussion. But here are some of the highlights. They do not reflect complete agreement, but indicate some directions of the discussion.
First, orthodox economics had, in the years leading up to the crisis, become more a cult than a science, particularly with the assumption that what exists in competitive markets has to be the best possible outcome, since, if it were not, it could not exist. So, if crises are not predicted, it is because they cannot be: they are the result of unexpected shocks, by assumption.
Second, let a thousand flowers of thought bloom. There cannot be just one general model of the economy or just one approach to economics. Among the blooms discussed were behavioural economics, neuroeconomics, computer based modelling of processes over time. Participants recommended talking to political scientists and even sociologists. They also recommended looking at the causes of inequality, the economics of happiness, the role of institutions, the importance of culture, and the effects of power. Fortunately, economists are creative people. A great deal of imaginative stuff is going on.
Third, the sociology of the profession – the need to define and defend a core discipline that can be taught to students and so determines what it means to be an economist – militates against such heterodoxy. There is a fundamental tension here. But cross-disciplinary co-operation is one way of out.
Fourth, human beings are not rational calculating machines. Their mood and approaches to decision making varies with the circumstances.
Fifth, time matters in economic processes, which are, in general, not reversible and not characterised by any sort of equilibrium. More broadly still, economics suffers from physics envy. It seeks to be an exact science, which is impossible.
Sixth, the world is not computable. It is far more sensible to think in terms of irreducible uncertainty than computable risk. This fundamental point made by John Maynard Keynes was lost in the subsequent so-called “neoclassical synthesis”.
Seventh, being a study of complex human behaviour, in which the world is created by human understand and motivations, economics is hard.
Eighth, in theory it is right and proper to abstract in order to focus on a specific phenomenon. In addressing policy, this is irresponsible. Policy must be informed by an understanding of everything that might bear on the problem in front of one. This makes economic policy really hard to do well.
Ninth, even though economists get much wrong, they still have much to offer to non-economists who tend to assume that economic problems are far more simple than they actually are.
Tenth, there is a great danger that in rejected the most simplistic pro-market mantras, economists and policymakers will embrace even more dangerous and naïve statism.
Fonte: Martin Wolf, FT
