Ha-Joon Chang is one of the great economists, and one of the great economic communicators of our time.
He has a whole new video series on economics out now.
This is the trailer for the series:
And this is the first lecture, on the nature of economics:
I will be posting them all over time.
His basic hypothesis in this opening lecture is simple: economics cannot explain everything and economists need to be a lot more humble.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If it wasn’t for Chang, and the excellent course of my political economy lecturer at the time, I might never have become a lefty.
I see (much of) mainstream economics as something which is manipulated to dictate and restrict our political freedoms and options. “Things have to be like this because of economic theory, or the markets, etc etc. Really, as Minister for bla-bla, I’d love to be able to transform society, but I can’t because economics”.
What Chang does so successfully, is to strip away ideology from developmental economics. Of course he has his views and biases, but his work looks at history and analyses what has worked, and what hasn’t worked. He grounds it in real-world examples. As a Korean, he has grown up in an country which has successfully transformed from a basket case economy to a global economic power. He therefore has a lot of real-world examples of how developmental economics works in practice. He doesn’t stop there though, and offers a thorough debunking of classical liberal, and neo-liberal accounts of economic development. He explains in very clear terms how rich countries became rich. None of them did so on the basis of classical liberal or neo-liberal economic development theory. They all had varying degrees of state intervention and direction at varying points.
I think it was the way in which he gave such practical, pragmatic arguments, which were not grounded in ideology, which won me over.
If we want to build a modern, prosperous society, with a dynamic economy, we should follow his advice. The Government has to be an active participant in the economy, helping to support and incubate the businesses of the future. That is difficult, but it is what is needed.
benZo says:
” The Government has to be an active participant in the economy, helping to support and incubate the businesses of the future.”
There is no other known way.
If Government doesn’t accept that responsibility, why have governments at all ?
‘If Government doesn’t accept that responsibility, why have governments at all ?’
Thank you Andy that man, thank you!!
Yes i have heard of him and he follow the same lines as Randall Wray, Steve Keen, Michael Hudson
I will look at him more but i do like randall wray top guy.
I have not got an economics degree, but two degrees in history. My first degree dealt with the economics of the western world through an historical perspective.
I might add i was taught by marxist historians, also tory and socialist ones as well. I was already on the left wing before i went to university ie in my late 20s. To put it bluntly the UK, US or any other country would not exist without the state.
The expansion of the british empire was due to the state investment in the navy and army, same for the US etc. Of course a good dose of freedoms was needed as well as oppression at home and abroad when the natives got restless and out of hand. In the case of the americans the british failed spectacularly.
Darren Sharrocks says:
” In the case of the americans the british failed spectacularly.”
You think ?
I think you think wrong.
The Americans picked up the baton of the failed British Empire and set about to do World Domination ‘properly’.
And OMG are they are showing us how it’s done. They are so good Boris Johnson and the interests he fronts want desperately to get a piece of the action.
That’s how good the Americans are at being utterly ruthless and winning.
A good pupil will always exceed his mentor, (Grasshopper).
But the Americans are thick. They miss the point. They have learned nothing from their own history and adopted ours instead, and look where that got us. Bloody nowhere. 🙁
U misunderstand me the americans defeated the British in the revolution
As for empire, no the american did not out do the british in that sphere. Domination is one thing and empire is another.
Ok here is why:how many countries has the united states seeded? None, the states do not count. The British help or spawned 5 major countries, one a superpower.
The british controlled india with a very small british army and large civil service and indian army
All 50 US bases around the world do no have the same footprint as the British Empire. As for power projection that is a different matter, but i am not getting into that.
Cannot be bothered. The americans defeated the British in the revolution, that is an historical fact. They did not do it on their own, indeed they could not have do so but again that is another argument.