Verbatim | Nov 12,2022
Sep 3 , 2022
By Bradford DeLong ( is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. )
On September 6, Basic Books is publishing "Slouching Towards Utopia," my economic history of the “long twentieth century” from 1870 to 2010. It is past time, I argue, that we shift our understanding of where the hinge of global economic history lies.
Some might put it in 1076, when the European Investiture Controversy cemented the idea that law should constrain even the most powerful, rather than being merely a tool at their disposal. Another big year is 1450, when the arrival of the Gutenberg moveable-type printing press and the Renaissance set the stage for the Enlightenment. And then, of course, there is 1770, when the Industrial Revolution really got into swing.
There can be no disputing the importance of what these dates represent. But I chose 1870 because it matters even more. It is when the industrial research lab, the modern corporation, and full globalisation fell into place. These were the institutions that would supercharge technological progress to the point of doubling the size of the global economy every generation – which is generally what it did from 1870 to 2010.
That unprecedented pace of technological advance gave humanity the power finally to banish the devil of Malthus. No longer would population growth cancel out productivity gains to keep the world poor. Innovations in technology, method, and organisation made it possible to expand the economic pie so that everyone could have enough. This meant that governance would no longer function primarily as a resource-extraction machine by which the elite could grab “enough” of the insufficiently sized pie for themselves. Instead, government and politics could finally be directed toward making a truly human world.
The post-1870 technological trajectory rapidly surpassed anything that humanity had previously imagined would be necessary for achieving utopia. With the problem of baking a sufficiently large economic pie having been solved, it seemed that the hard part was over. All humanity had to do next was to figure out how to slice and then taste the pie – that is, how to convert our technological prowess into happy, healthy, safe, and secure lives for all. These problems would be solved even faster, right?
In fact, the problems of slicing and tasting the rapidly growing economic pie have consistently flummoxed us. To understand why we have collectively been unable to get it right, I would point to four thinkers.
The first is the Austrian-born economist Joseph Schumpeter, who explained how modern technology generates immense wealth through a process of “creative destruction.” Technological and economic progress requires that old industries, occupations, and societal patterns be regularly destroyed to make way for new creations. This process can undoubtedly be painful. But it is also why there has been more technological change since 1870 than between 6000 BC and 1869.
The second thinker is Friedrich Engels, who worked out the Marxist base-superstructure model of political economy (this is, of course, Marx’s framework, but I believe it owes more to his collaborator).
“Superstructure” describes all of society, with its personal networks, sociological patterns, and political, cultural, and – crucially – economic institutions. As important as these things are, they all rest on and must conform to the underlying technological “base” of production. At every moment since 1870, whatever sociological software a society was running would inevitably become obsolete and crash within 50 years, owing to changes in the underlying hardware, which in turn were driven by Schumpeterian creative destruction.
The third thinker is another Austrian-born economist, Friedrich von Hayek. His magnificent insight was that the market economy is an unrivalled mechanism for crowdsourcing innovation and mobilising human brainpower to make the world richer (provided that property rights are enforced).
But Hayek warned that these benefits come at a terrible price: the market cannot be expected to provide any form of social justice. He believed in his bones that any attempt to manage or tweak the market with such goals in mind not only would fail but also would undermine the market’s ability to do what it does best. His doctrine thus amounted to, “The market giveth, the market taketh away: blessed be the name of the market.” Anything else would put us on “the road to serfdom.”
Finally, the Hungarian economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi saw that Hayek’s vision of a market-bestowed utopia was unsustainable by dint of being inhuman. People want a say in how their society’s resources are used. They will demand that their – and others’ – incomes reach some minimum dignified level, and they will expect a certain degree of stability. People tend to resist the idea that their pattern of life can be singlehandedly destroyed by some rootless profit-maximising cosmopolite half a world away. For better or worse, that is how people are. If property rights really are the only rights that matter, politics and society eventually will unravel.
All four thinkers enable us to understand why we have been unable to use our technological prowess to construct an equitable and happy world. But diagnosis is of course only half the battle (and probably less). The task of future generations is to figure out how to become as good at slicing and tasting the economic pie as previous generations were at making it bigger.
PUBLISHED ON Sep 03,2022 [ VOL 23 , NO 1166]
Verbatim | Nov 12,2022
Sponsored Contents | Jun 15,2022
Fortune News | Dec 21,2022
Viewpoints | Oct 30,2022
Agenda | Jan 18,2020
Fortune News | Oct 15,2022
Radar | Feb 08,2020
Commentaries | Dec 24,2022
Fortune News | Aug 06,2022
Radar | Aug 13,2022
Photo Gallery | 63966 Views | May 06,2019
Photo Gallery | 55846 Views | Apr 26,2019
Fortune News | 50926 Views | Jul 18,2020
Fortune News | 50508 Views | Sep 01,2021
Commentaries | Jan 21,2023
Life Matters | Jan 21,2023
My Opinion | Jan 21,2023
Sunday with Eden | Jan 21,2023
Agenda | Jan 21,2023
Editorial | Jan 21,2023
Dec 24 , 2022
Biniam Mikru heads the department of cabinet affairs under Mayor Adanech Abiebie. But...
Jul 2 , 2022 . By RUTH TAYE
On a rainy afternoon last week, a coffee processing facility in the capital's Akaki-Qality District was abuzz with activ...
Nov 27 , 2021
Against my will, I have witnessed the most terrible defeat of reason and the most sa...
Nov 13 , 2021
Plans and reality do not always gel. They rarely do in a fast-moving world. Every act...
Leaders of the National Election Board are in a charm offensive mood, of a sort. Last week, they organised a rare tour for members of the me...
When the country's most senior diplomats and envoys return back to their posts after two-week debriefings, they leave behind a point or two...
Jan 21 , 2023
Eyob Tekalign, state minister for Finance, took to social media platforms last week t...
Jan 14 , 2023
The longing for normalcy and a semblance of individual and collective security in Eth...
Jan 7 , 2023
The hallmark of Ethiopia's contemporary leaders could be a fascination with grandeur...
Dec 31 , 2022
A change of guards in 2018 gave Ethiopians hope for better circumstances from the pre...
I found myself in an awkward situation one of the days last week. The plan was to have lunch with two of my friends, but one of them was fas...
Jan 21 , 2023
Fewer couples tied the knot in 2022 than the year before; the post-pandemic environment could be attributed to over 12,000 more married coup...
A women's rehabilitation and skill development centre foresees construction as Mayor Adanech Abiebie laid...
Contractors are apprehensive about buying a policy from insurance companies as the requisite for collateral is half the performance bond. Af...
Jan 21 , 2023
Two federal offices of the highest stature saw newly appointed young leaders installed last week. Parliam...
Or see contact page