Via Sullivan, Will at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen has an interesting post up wondering why, given their alleged propensity to accept the specialist-generated consensus on issues like global warming, many on the left remain so skeptical about the benefits of free trade, an issue about which there is substantial consensus within the discipline of economics:I’m willing to accept the consensus view of specialists in most fields (to preempt the inevitable, I don’t think the infamous “Climate-gate” memos demonstrate systematic bias). So here’s my question, prompted by what sounded like a shot at free trade in E. D.’s latest post: Why don’t we accord the same level of deference to economists? Shouldn’t the pro-free trade consensus within the field of economics be as bullet-proof as belief in global warming?It's a good point, and for what it's worth, my response is two-fold. 1) I agree, sort of. My general rule for forming opinions about subjects with which I'm not intimately acquainted is to look to the consensus among specialists, and where no such consensus exists, look to those specialists whose work seems best compatible with my understanding of related subjects. I don't believe anthropogenic global warming is happening because I've built and run my own climate models. I believe it because damn near every qualified person who has built and run such models has reached a similar conclusion. Likewise, my (slightly qualified) support of a global free trade regime is based on a similar consensus among economists of multiple ideological stripes. The tendency of some in the anti-globalization crowd to pooh-pooh the accumulated knowledge of a two-century-old discipline is one of the reasons I don't count myself among its ranks. That said, there are intellectually coherent reasons for being skeptical of "free trade" as it is currently practiced that don't require willful scientific ignorance, which brings me to my second point.
It’s not a partisan issue – in my opinion, the best introduction to the benefits of international trade was written by Paul Krugman. And the strength of the pro-free trade consensus in economics is at least as robust as the consensus view among climatologists. There are a few high profile dissenters, but those exist in every field, including climatology.
If an overwhelming number of trained specialists in a particular field agree on one issue, shouldn’t we just take their word for it? And if not, why not?
2) Intelligent people who are against free trade probably don't disagree with the economics, they disagree with the political economics. Will, in his post, notes that accepting the validity of climate science doesn't lead to an immediately obvious course of practical action. The most direct response - immediate cessation of all carbon emissions - is socially, politically, and economically implausible. Thus, scientific insight must be translated into practical action through political means (a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade regime, increased EPA regulation) that from a purely scientific standpoint will probably be sub-optimal. Likewise with free trade. It's entirely possible to accept that, in an ideal world, unfettered global exchange will produce the maximum economic benefit for everyone, while at the same time believing that the political means through which such a regime has in fact been implemented in recent decades has produced more dislocation, misery, inequality and crony capitalism than its benefits justify. That's a contestable proposition. Indeed, it's one I'd contest personally. But it's not ignorant of the consensus for free trade among economists, and its not equivalent to denying that climate change is happening.
I think the main reason why the free trade consensus is not accepted as much as the global warming consensus is, is that most people think they actually know enough about economcis to make informed statements about it -but they really don't. Whereas with climate change, as you said, one doesn't conduct his own experiments to see if the man-made emissinos change global temperatures, but relies on experts. People don't do that with respect to free trade. There are enough news reports about the international casues of layoffs, outsourcing, rising prices etc that people will eventually form some sort of ill-informed opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo I do think there should be more deference to economics as a discipline. Also, in my view many of the arguments and distinctions that appear in discussions, for example about the "political economics" raised by you, often disappear when facts are examined more closely. I mean, economists do often talk about the problems that exist and what purely economic steps would be required to solve them. But when the miseries of people in developing countries are cited by the anti-globalization crowd, they usually leave out the part about what these people were doing before and how they are often working in these factories not out of ocercion but because they want better lives. Just like in 19th century England. Also, what is not said often is that we don't even have free trade to the extent that most free trade economists would wish for. Otherwise, why do the US and EU subsidize their agricultural sectors that much, why are currencies manipulated (like China does), why do we have major balance of payment surpluses and deficits in so many countries which don't cancel out over time - as they should, in a truly free trade world.
Economics, as I see it, is always inherently about distributive and hence political questions. Because any political or social goals that are formulated require resources to put them into practice. And it's always easier to make a bigger pie than to shrink the current one by dividing up the pieces. Economics is the most benign of all social science disciplines because it actually starts out by taking people's empirical preferences, and not some other random ideas, as the base line for its analysis. It thus offers more suggestions on how to improve life and social welfare than any other field. But the necessary steps often aren't taken, not because the economics is flawed, but because there are usually some hard, mean and very uneconomic interests working behind the scenes. People don't see that to the extent that it exists, and I think that is where the problem truly lies, and why the debate is so confusing.
Economics is not a science.
ReplyDelete