LYNN FRIES: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Lynn Fries, in Geneva.
This is the concluding segment of a six-part series with economist Ha-Joon Chang. We're
exploring thoughts from his book Economics: The User's Guide, where he explains that all
of us need to learn economics, and challenge any economist who wants us to think economics
is a science best left to experts. Our guest, Ha-Joon Chang, joins us from the UK where
he teaches economics at the University of Cambridge. Economics: The User's Guide is
his latest book. Earlier books include Kicking Away the Ladder, and 23 Things They Don't
Tell You About Capitalism.
Welcome, Ha-Joon.
HA-JOON CHANG: Hi.
FRIES: In Parts 4 and 5 you showed how many different approaches to doing economics have
differentiated themselves from the Neoclassical approach. You argue in favor of an economics
profession that promotes intellectual diversity across many different schools of economic
thought. So let's conclude with your thoughts on that.
CHANG: Yeah, in the book I argue that there should be intellectual diversity within economics.
I introduce no less than nine schools of economics, each with its own strengths and weaknesses,
each with its own focus and specialty. And I argue that all of these different schools
are necessary if you are going to fully understand the complex thing called the economy.
Now, I actually go one step further than other people who call for intellectual diversity
in that I say that we actually need to actively encourage interaction between these different
schools. Some people argue that we need intellectual diversity, but their attitude is more like
live and let live, you know. I think what I do is correct, but you know, I'll let you
say what you're doing. I mean, I think it was Voltaire the French philosopher who once
famously said to someone that sir, I totally disagree with you, but I'm willing to die
to defend your right to say what you believe.
Now, that is a political pluralism, if you like. But what I'm defending in the book is
intellectual pluralism in the sense that we need different approaches, but working together,
talking to each other. And actually interaction between different schools can actually improve
our understanding of the world significantly. So for example, you know, I mentioned that
Keynesian economics has finance at its heart, but that theory of finance can be actually
improved by introducing some of the insights from the Behavioralist School, actually. Some
people are already doing that.
For another example, the Developmentalist School has a very good understanding of how
big, structural changes can happen in the economy, but they are not necessarily--the
Developmentalist Tradition is not necessarily sophisticated in its understanding of how
institutions evolve and how people's perceptions and behavior change in relation to economic
change. And once again, combining insights of Developmentalist School with those of Institutionalist
and Behavioralist Schools can improve our understanding of the economy.
So I mean, I could give many examples. But the point is that by bringing the different
intellectual traditions together, actually we can improve our understanding. And that
is why I call for a genuine intellectual pluralism, not just political pluralism of live and let
live. It's a call for active cross-fertilization of ideas.
FRIES: And last but not least, tell us why you're bringing this argument to the widest
possible audience, the public.
CHANG: Now, finally, why do I try to reach out to the biggest possible audience? You
know, when I wrote my latest book, I was actually assuming that the reader doesn't know a thing
about economics. And thankfully many readers have actually told me that, through email,
sometimes in person, that they didn't know anything about economics but they could read
out, they could read my book with little difficulty. So I'm very pleased that I have partly achieved
my goal.
Now, the reason why I decided to reach out to the widest public is--I think there's a
bit of a risk of sounding pretentious here, but I think it's an important project if we
are going to defend democracy. You know, in the recent period economics has become so
impenetrable to non-specialists that it has become difficult for ordinary citizens to
have a debate about economic issues, when economic policies are crucial in running our
societies.
Now, the interesting thing is that, you know, many people are perfectly willing to debate
the things that they don't have any expertise in. The, I don?t know, climate change, gay
marriage, you know, American foreign policy in the Middle East. A lot of people are willing
to express strong views about these things despite having, I don't know, no degree in
international relations, or not ethics, or whatever. So there's a really curious deficit
of public engagement and attention in the area of economic policy, because basically
economists have been fantastically successful in convincing people that the stuff is so
difficult that you don't understand it, even if we tried to explain it to you. So please
go away and not say what you say.
And the culmination of this kind of technocratic attitude, you know, economists as some kind
of high priest who have exclusive access to knowledge that other people cannot possibly
have and understand, was shown during the eurozone crisis when the European Union and
the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund basically imposed unelected
people as prime ministers on Italy and Greece. You know, of course, I would personally have
voted for Mr. Mario Monti, who replaced Mr. Berlusconi as the Italian Prime Minister in
that episode.
But you know, this actually shows how the, I mean, how we have created a world where
economists are impervious to outside scrutiny, and economists do not have to subject themselves
to public debate. They can just browbeat the general public, saying well, we know what
you don't know. We have all these sophisticated mathematical models that proves this, proves
that. And that closing off of public debate in the area of economics I think has been
very important in weakening our democracies.
So my hope in writing this book was to tell people, look. I mean, economics is not that
difficult. You know, anyone with secondary education can understand the basics of it,
and by getting rid of that aversion or even fear about economics, I think that this book
will contribute to encouraging people to engage in more vigorous debate on economic issues.
And through that, I hope to contribute to the promotion and strengthening of democratic
debate.
FRIES: And as we conclude, once again, many thanks to our guest. Ha-Joon Chang, thank
you.
CHANG: Thank you.
FRIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.