Podcasts

The conversation begins at post-World War I Vienna, a city teeming with intellectual ferment and political and economic turmoil. Caldwell highlights the importance of understanding the historical context in which Hayek grew up, emphasising that the aftermath of war and the subsequent economic crisis and the hyperinflation episode played a significant role in shaping his ideas; in particular, Hayek’s deep interest in monetary issues, his scepticism of central planning and his advocacy for individual freedom and free markets. Hayek’s engagement with the ideas of socialism during his time as a student, is explored, as well as the impact of witnessing the rise of mass parties and the erosion of individual liberties.

Caldwell discusses Hayek as a classical liberal and not as a libertarian. Hayek did not deny the state to allow for a well-functioning society, but one we needed to put limits on. The discussion then shifts to Hayek’s publication of The Road to Serfdom (1944), which emerged in response to the growing popularity of socialism and the perception by many at the time that central planning was a means to achieve economic and social justice. Caldwell highlights Hayek’s argument that centralised control inevitably leads to the erosion of individual freedom. The discussion of these ideas was at the core of the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society by Hayek in 1947.

Throughout the podcast, Caldwell emphasises Hayek’s commitment to understanding the complexity of the social order and the importance of spontaneous market processes. The conversation ends with Caldwell’s recommendations on Hayek’s works.

Further readings:

1. Caldwell (2004): Hayek’s Challenge: an intellectual biography of F.A. Hayek. University of Chicago Press.
2. Caldwell and H. Klausinger (2022): Hayek: A Life, 1899-1950. University of Chicago Press.

You can read P. Schwartz’s 2023 review on Caldwell and Klausinger’s (2022) Hayek’s biography in Economic Affairs (June issue), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecaf.12580.

The discussion then turns to another trend amongst academic economics articles: a detachment from day-to-day economic issues. Castaneda questions whether Economic Affairs has followed this trend, and enquires what topics the journal typically features. Shackleton replies that the journal publishes three types of articles: (1) new research original articles, (2) discussion, more provocative pieces, and (3) a book reviews section and one long review article.

Castaneda then questions how relevant the classical liberal approach that Economic Affairs follows is to the understanding of Economics? Shackleton replies that whilst Economic Affairs does publish articles in this tradition, it isn’t an exclusive club, and they welcome articles approaching political economy from a range of different perspectives. The podcast ends with Shackleton offering advice to young scholars when assessing which journal to submit their manuscripts for publication: his major advice is to be aware of who you are talking to, who your audience is. Somebody reading your article is interested in your core message and the way in which you present relevant conclusions.

Economic Affairs is a peer reviewed journal published by the Vinson Centre at the University of Buckingham and the Institute of Economic Affairs, in collaboration with Hesperides University and Francisco Marroquin University, through academic publisher Wiley. It is edited by Prof. Len Shackleton. The journal content is available by subscription, though a substantial number of articles are open access. Further details can be obtained from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14680270

Juan Castaneda then questions why there is so much opposition to trade from policymakers across the world. Hammond explains that much opposition to trade is partly the result of companies lobbying governments to erect artificial trade barriers to protect them from foreign competition. Another reason for protectionist sentiment among policymakers is that tariffs can create direct revenue streams for governments, yet their costs are largely unseen. Hammond explains that common barriers to trade aside from tariffs include inadequate infrastructure and excessive regulation.

The discussion then turns to different standards and labour market regulations between countries, and whether this should restrict free trade. Hammond debunks the idea that richer nations are taking advantage of people in poorer countries by looking at opportunity cost: average incomes of people working in the agricultural sector and family or community run farms tends to be significantly lower than those working in factories or even sweatshops. This highlights that whilst labour market conditions in poorer countries may shock people in the developed world, they are preferable to other domestic job opportunities. Furthermore, Hammond states that trade can bring poorer countries a greater range of products at lower prices.

Castaneda draws attention to the ‘infant industry argument’ raised by the critics of free trade, and whether smaller countries can compete internationally without being protected and subsidised first. Hammond refutes this by stating that protected industries will ‘never grow up’ unless they trade internationally, and that government subsidies arbitrarily select winners. Hammond then explains how Africa has become significantly freer since the end of the Cold War, as many countries previously bankrolled by the Soviet Union became freer, and that this has correlated with greater economic development.

Finally, Castaneda asks whether aid is an appropriate alternative to free trade. To this, Hammond explains the problems of foreign aid through debunking the vicious cycle of poverty theory, an argument that helped create the modern aid industry. Hammond explains that many formerly rich countries have become poor (e.g. Venezuela) and vice versa. He concludes by explaining that an estimated 30% of aid does not reach its final destination due to corruption, and politicians spend too much valuable time coordinating aid.

Further Reading:

IATP: Africa Needs Free Markets, not Wealth Transfers

Skarbeck et al. (2012): ‘Sweatshops, Opportunity Costs, and Non-Monetary Compensation: Evidence from El Salvador’. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. July.

IATP: Africa Tries Free Trade

In our conversation with Mikko Arevou, we ‘address the mistaken interpretations of Adam Smith’s fundamental concepts that have been said to have had a corrosive influence on commercial behaviour’. Mikko argues that ‘a close reading of Smith’s work reveals that although he promoted free market competition as a prerequisite for wealth creation and limited government intervention in economic and social affairs, he was a critic of greed, the commodification and alienation of human relationships that resulted from division of labour, crony capitalism, and he was aware of the corrosive effect of inequality on human morality’.

(*) Should you want to request a copy of the paper, please contact the author directly.

Readings:

Smith. A. (2009 [1759]): The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, A. (1999 [1776]): The Wealth of Nations, Books I-V. Penguin Classics, London.

Juan Castaneda starts the conversation suggesting that senior academics, policy makers, and central bankers do not seem to have a coherent theory of what causes inflation. John Greenwood then gives an overview of the current monetary policy of the Bank of England, which is based on an aggregate demand and supply model. The staff of the bank prepares estimates of aggregate demand, which is the spending side, and aggregate supply, which is composed of the potential outcome and the output gap. The output gap is the difference between the actual output and the calculated potential output. If the potential output is above the actual output, the bank might try to stimulate the economy. If aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, the bank will tighten policy by raising rates. However, quantifying all of this is challenging, especially in real-time. As John Greenwood concludes, while it is in part a Keynesian model it is certainly not monetarist.

John Greenwood then discusses the role played by the Bank of England in the creation of money during the Covid19 pandemic, mainly via Quantitative Easing (QE)  operations. These consist of the purchase by the central bank of assets such as government securities and potentially private sector bonds and securities by the central bank. In 2020 and 2021 the Bank of England purchased a large amount of guilts (i.e. government bonds), mainly from non-banks, resulting in the creation of additional reserves and new deposits in the banking system (i.e. money).

Why QE has now been inflationary and it wasn’t back in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (2007-09)? This is a key question John Greenwood addresses in our conversation. In 2009 commercial banks focused on repairing their balance sheet and reducing bank lending, leading to subdued growth of money, broadly defined (including bank deposits). With QE central banks, in essence, ‘filled the hole’ left by commercial banks and managed to avoid a more profound fall in the amount of money. This low rate of growth of money broadly defined is what explains subdued inflation in those years. However, in 2020 and 2021, QE resulted in a significant increase in the amount of money, which explains the increase in nominal spending and ultimately in inflation, though with a delay.

The main proposition of the ‘quantitative theory of money’ is that there is a stable relationship between the quantity of money in the economy and nominal spending in the economy. If there is a change in the amount of money, in the longer run it will impact the price level: if too much money, that causes inflation, and vice versa. However, the Bank of England didn’t (doesn’t) use this rationale to assess the effects of the increase in the amount of money (which reached 15% on an annual basis between 2020 and 2021). There is roughly a  two-year delay between the policy change and inflationary figures. Instead the Bank of England seems to focus on the policy rate and not the change in the quantity of money when assessing inflation.

Overall, you will find in this episode a comprehensive overview of the monetary policy strategy of the Bank of England and the quantitative theory of money, and how the Bank of England has contributed to the 2021 – 2023 inflation episode in the UK.

Greenwood, J. (2023): ‘The monetary policy strategy of the Bank of England in 2020–21: An assessment’. In Economic Affairs Vol. 43,1. February. Pp. 53-72.

Further Reading

Friedman, M. and Schwartz, A. (1982). Monetary Trends in the United States and the United Kingdom: Their Relations to Income, Prices, and Interest Rates. University of Chicago Press.

Greenwood, J. and Hanke, S. (2022). On monetary growth and inflation in leading economies, 2021–2022: Relative prices and the overall price level. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 33 (4), pp. 39–51.

King, M. (2022). Monetary policy in a world of radical uncertainty. Economic Affairs, 42 (1), pp. 2–12.

The discussion then delves into the different types of banking crises: a capital crisis and a liquidity crisis. A capital crisis occurs when there is a sudden drop in a bank’s capital, for example when a large loan goes wrong. On the other hand, a liquidity crisis is when a bank is solvent (i.e. it has enough capital) but cannot meet all its payment obligations. In the event of a run on a bank this can precipitate a loss of confidence in other banks and thus provoke the collapse of the entire banking system.

The conversation then moves to how central banks should respond to a liquidity crisis. Professor Wood suggests that the central bank should lend freely to any affected bank to prevent a crisis, provided that the bank in crisis has enough assets to borrow money from the central bank. The central bank should lend on a higher interest rate to account for the greater risk incurred by the bank in crisis, even if the collateral provided is not ideal. Professor Wood makes it clear that the emphasis should be put on the stability of the whole financial system; thus any firm should be allowed to fail, as long as there is a legal mechanism in place to ensure that the process is orderly, which is the case in the UK and the US.

Finally, regarding the new regulations approved by both international and national regulators to prevent a financial crisis, Professor Wood argues that creating a framework on how to deal effectively with crises, rather than making institutions similar in terms of their balance sheets, is a better approach. Our conversation ends with a summary discussion on the importance of understanding the different types of financial crises and how to respond to them effectively.

Wood, G. (2023). ‘In search for stability’. In Economic Affairs. Vol. 43,1. February. Pp. 1-9.

Further Reading

Daníelsson, J. (2022). The Illusion of Control: Why Financial Crises Happen, and What We Can (and Can’t) Do About It.

Schwartz, A. (1986). Real and pseudo-financial crises. In F. Capie and G. Wood (Eds.), Financial Crises and the World Banking System (pp. 11–31). Macmillan.

Pollock, A. & Adler, H. (2022). Surprised Again! The COVID Crisis and the New Market Bubble.