As an academic and as an activist, I am sometimes asked (please, keep asking, I learn a lot!) about my opinion on some economic issues on which I am not necessarily an expert. Sometimes I just feel inclined to express my view, perhaps because I suspect that the prevalent opinions may benefit from a more academic perspective. I try to do it with modesty, aware of past mistakes of economists and other academics, on social or policy issues.
For example, this week I have been asked about my opinions on the role of nuclear energy in our transition to a carbon-free economy, and about my opinion about a concept called "doughnut economics," promoted in a 2017 book by Kate Raworth.
What I usually do in these cases is try to see what the experts say. Of course, the experts are not necessarily those that speak more about these issues in the media. I try to screen them from platforms such as Google Scholar, and then use my own judgment about their credentials, and the identity of their institutions or of the journals or other outlets where they publish.
On nuclear energy, my first reaction was to believe that there should be a scientific consensus on this topic, as the private and external costs (that is, the social costs) of different ways of producing energy should be well known and quantifiable. However, I could not find such consensus. I didn't find anyone serious saying that nuclear would be a panacea to transition quickly to a carbon free economy, because of its costs, but several articles and apparently independent reports argue that nuclear energy, which does not contribute to climate change, should have a role in the transtition, if ways are found to safely reduce these costs. Probably the lack of consensus is behind the difference of opinions that the European Commission and the European Parliament seem to hold on this issue. What disinterested citizens should ask for, is more expert independent work on this, now that the focus of public opinion and environmentalist groups is righlty on fighting the climate emergency.
On "doughnut economics," a concept I had heard about but to be honest I never paid much attention to, I looked at a few links I was provided with and I did a Google Scholar search for book reviews of Raworth's book. Its idea is to provide a visual representation of a social and economic system that pays attention to environmental and other limits to economic activity. Some of its principles are very reasonable, and would be subscribed my most experts. The review by Erik Shokkaert criticizes it for building a strawman of maisntream economics. Raworth's agnosticism about economic growth, with the hindsight of the Covid-19 crisis and the current shock of the Ukraine war, is perhaps not something that struggling majorities in our democracies share, as Janan Ganesh points out today in the Financial Times, and as I mentioned in a previous post.
Social science should not be about yes or no answers, but about grey zones and qualified answers, even understanding that policy makers and politicians are often forced into more black and white dichotomies.
Perhaps because I have a vested interest in keeping the value of my Economics PhD, my inclination is that of not departing too much from the true mainstream, by which I mean the research that is currently done at the frontier, and not the one done 50 years ago. By this I mean that taking into account inequalities, climate change and beahvioural issues, for example, are now part of the economics mainstream, or at least the mainstream self-criticism of standard economics. Advanced research sometimes provides strong answers, but many times it does not, which does not mean that it should not be a useful guide. Very reasonable scholars may sometimes disagree, based on different perspectives, beliefs and ideologies.
By obtaining an overview of current research, sometimes we'll stay confused, but at a higher level.
No comments:
Post a Comment