Home > Uncategorized > A little knowledge

A little knowledge

from Peter Radford

A little knowledge goes a long way.  That’s the saying, correct?  Well you’d never know it by looking at economics.  It’s hard to find knowledge anywhere.

Now I’m not being facetious about the gaps in economic theory.  Let’s all give the discipline its due and say that it has done a masterful job of getting as far as it has based on the limitations it bounds itself with.

It’s just that sometimes those limitations are glaring and can stop someone in their tracks if they’re not steeped in the dark arts themselves.

The results of those limitations are often a stunning avoidance of topics that are crucial to understanding a real economy.  Or at least they’re crucial to someone less determined to be so willingly limited.

I know, this is all vague.  Let me explain.

I have been re-reading an excellent book by Cesar Hidalgo.  It’s called “Why Information Grows”.  It was first published in 2015, and is well worth the time it takes to read through it.  Hidalgo is another of those apparently endless line of MIT types who wander all over topics in an unconstrained manner.  In his case he sets out a wonderfully clear account of what information is — as opposed to the usual rather cramped version built solely on Shannon’s communication theory.

I read the book back when it first came out.  My eye had been caught by it’s subtitle: “The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies”.  How could I possibly pass that up?  Obviously I was not alone it being captivated by that innocent line because Paul Romer, someone far more august than me, also read it upon its publication.  I know this because he blogged about it in 2015. 

Hidalgo is able to provide answers that are salient in their absence in economics.  Interestingly Romer, whose blog urges us to think like scientists and uses the Hidalgo book as a source of what this might look like, seems to miss the really valuable insights for economics I find most useful.

Of course, I need to modify all that.  I have no evidence from Romer’s blog that he did, in fact, miss those insights.  I am assuming that miss only by dint of not seeing any subsequent commentary suggesting that Hidalgo’s message hit home.  And my feeling that the insights are valuable depends entirely on my own quirky view of economics.

With that said let me explain further.

It has always been clear to me that the process of production, and beyond that the process of growth in an economy, depends on the way in which various groups of people deploy knowledge.  Think of the infamous fudge called “Total Factor Productivity” that fell out of Solow’s masterful exploration of growth.  How on earth can centuries of economic thinking end up with two-thirds of growth being due to an unexplained phenomenon that was then given a suitably vague name and shunted off for future thought?

In my view it’s darned obvious that most of that inexplicable factor is the knowledge accumulated through time.  Anyone who has struggled through the introduction of a new product or service can tell you that acquiring the knowledge necessary to build and distribute it is the hardest part.  Getting the labor and capital is a breeze by comparison.  And  no amount of incentive will make that knowledge magical appear.  The knowledge has to pre-exist the incentive which can then induce the kind of reaction economics confines itself to.  Incentive structures without knowledge are sterile.  The analytical framework of economics takes the existence of knowledge for granted and simply describes the allocation of the other resources needed to combine with knowledge to create production.

Which brings me to a related pet complaint of mine: neither capital nor labor are fundamental resources.  If we are, as Romer urges, to be scientific about our thinking we have to recognize that both traditional components of the normal production function are horribly muddled and imprecise.  The great capital controversy of the early post-war years was about this imprecision.  What wasn’t discussed, as far as I know, back then is that labor is also a muddled term.

Labor, in a more accurate and useful depiction, is a combination of energy, as in muscle power, and skill or know-how.  So we can decompose it into energy and knowledge input into production.  If we do this it becomes obvious we need to learn how to quantify them both adequately.  Which is what I was hoping to learn that Romer had begun to attempt to do.  After all it would be leading us towards a more scientific understanding of production and a more accurate or useful production function.

If he has set out on that course I am unaware of it.  Perhaps  others have.  If not, all I can say is that economics remains unscientific and lacking in precision.  So much so that total factor productivity still exists as a talked about thing.

Then there’s a second issue Hidalgo attack with vigor: the oddity of the individual being the sole building block of economic theory.

The accumulation of knowledge has a few constraints.  The key ones are our individual capacity to learn and retain knowledge; and the geographical bias created by differential spacing of clusters of pre-existing knowledge.  The implication of these are dramatic for economics.  The second implies that development will take place more rapidly and with greater ease in location endowed with existing useful knowledge and know-how.  The first implies that as the complexity of production increases we reach a boundary of opportunity broached only by combining knowledge and know-how of groups of people.  We call these latter groups firms, and since industrialization most production has been within such groups.

Hidalgo actually introduces Ronald Coase in his chapter on the value of combining knowledge and its impact on the economy.  This, as you know, is music to my ears, although Hidalgo defers to economic terminology and repeats the anodyne phase “transaction costs” rather than suggesting we specify knowledge as a resource needing inclusion in production and that it is not simply the cost of acquiring knowledge that creates a need for firms, but that the combinatorial challenge presents an insurmountable barrier to production by individuals.  In other words, in complex production the firm is the standard model and production in the mode put forward by standard economic theory is an exception.  This is not a cost-based explanation for the firm, but a more fundamental knowledge-accumulation based explanation.

Now in an information dense society it is possible for an individual to acquire knowledge more readily.  This is where the concept of networks emerges as crucial to growth.  A firm is a centrally coordinated network, and the early proponents of digital technologies argued that such technologies would so reduce the cost of knowledge acquisition that it would become increasingly possible to undertake complex production without the administrative overhead of a typical firm.  The boundaries between what takes place inside a firm and what takes place within the auspices of a market would then shift away from the firm.  Or, at least, we would see different organizational structures  begin to emerge to challenge the supremacy of the firm.

While it is true we have seen a considerable effort to deconstruct firms in the last few decades, I would argue that the impulse for such an effort has come more from the incessant focus on delivering shareholder value that from the shift in costs associated in knowledge acquisition.  The origin, of course, of the shareholder value focus resides in the libertarian ideology of Milton Friedman rather than in any understanding of the core economics of the firm.

In any case, Hidalgo does us a service by pointing out where an effort to introduce a more scientific enquiry into economics might go.  As the challenge of combining knowledge into more complex and novel products and services increases, and as the economic explores across the opportunity frontier, as new knowledge allows it to do, the role of knowledge and know-how needs greater inclusion in our modeling of growth and in our explanations of production.

Right now economics falls far short of where it ought to be precisely because it treats neither information nor knowledge as fundamental resources and, instead sticks with the old, and definitionally confusing, categories of capital and labor.  If we are going to get into definitional discussions and arguments they ought at least be over the things that actually drive growth.  That would be scientific.



Let me add that this general thrust of argument is one where I would agree with Deidre McCloskey.  Whilst I take issue with her overly zealous defense of markets which in my opinion is a misallocation of virtue from the political domain into the economic domain, I would completely agree that the predominant driver of growth is the accumulation of knowledge.  

Obviously creating the conditions necessary for such an accumulation depends on the liberty of people to think and apply their thought in practical ways unhindered by institutional constraints.  I prefer to see that liberty first and foremost as a political concept which then allows a subsequent and dependent economic liberty to produce what we see as growth.  Markets, in the sense that economists discuss them, are political constructs for the purpose of undertaking economic activity.  Economics, then, is secondary to politics in the order of explanation of growth. 

  1. Edward K ross
    December 7, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    In response to Peter Radford December 7,2018

    Before commenting on this blog I am not an economist or academic, but simply a senior member of the public, who as Joan Robinson once said “the reason to study (think about) economics is to avoid being duped by economists.

    On this basis I think Peter Radford’s blog very stimulating , because it emphasises some important issues that should in my humble opinion should be regarded as prerequisites for economic study and conversations.

    For example “If we are, as Paul Romer urges, to be scientific in our thinking”
    The reason I highlight this statement is because from my experience and observation learning how to think is the first step in acquiring knowledge that should enable them to participate in meaningful conversations. Here I refer to C.T.Kurien’s education should be about learning how to think not what to think.
    I also completely support the idea that regardless of who or what we are there is an urgent need to be scientific in our thinking, that is challenge ideas with empirical evidence. I support this reasoning with the observation in the real world that ordinary citizens often get seriously frustrated when political economic rhetoric is at odds with what they are experiencing in the real world. I also support “Hidalgo introduces Ronald Coase in his chapter on the value of combining knowledge and its impact on the economy”.

  2. Helen Sakho
    December 8, 2018 at 2:28 am

    As far as I know “little knowledge is a dangerous thing” because it makes you jack of all trades and master/mistress of none? But I do also strongly believe that Economists and most Social Scientists nowadays continue to struggle with the difference between information (more like social gossip nowadays) and authentic knowledge, which has always been rare and more so now.

    I think Jo Robinson would agree.

  3. Frank Salter
    December 8, 2018 at 10:01 am

    Before September 2017, this would have been completely true. However since the publication of “Transient Development”, RWER-83, pp. 137−165, some of what it says has been superseded. The significance of time is not discussed except with respect to knowledge accumulation. Transient analysis explains changes over time which are fully consistent with the empirical evidence about production. Productivity is significant, but total factor productivity is irrelevant.

    There is mention of capital and labour not being fundamental resources, which implies that more appropriate factors might be applicable. However, we know from the physical sciences that dimensionless groupings are powerful elements in the quantitative explanation of the real world. In “Transient Development” it is established that the very mathematical expression of the neoclassical production function requires capital to be labour-time for reasons of dimensional validity.

    Furthermore, “Transient Development” shows that transient mathematics describes production theory from individual projects to whole industries and that aggregation is a valid mathematical process.

    On the blog’s final point, that growth is dependent on the accumulation of knowledge, I am in total agreement, with the rider that conventional economic analysis fails to deal with its mathematics appropriately.

  4. December 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Peter, thank you for this. Economists are maturing, at least a little bit. What you write also highlights the need for more interdisciplinary work by economists. For example, the basis of science is to question everything. Following that lead, anthropologists assume that nothing exists for Sapiens until it is created in and through the interactions of members of the species. Thus, anthropology is a study of controversies. The controversies involved in the creation of Sapiens cultures. Which includes not just knowledge in such academic disciplines as economics but all general societal knowledge, art, social structure, politics, language, law, religion, magic, art, and technology, and many institutions that don’t fit neatly into any of these categories, or cross from one part of life to another and sometimes back again. Anthropologists have created dozens of theories about these controversies and the creative work they involve. And they’ve certainly created as many if not more absurd and useless theories as economists. But eventually anthropologists return to observations they’ve made of Sapiens. Hoping to correct their theories, while recognizing that’s not possible completely. Particularly since Sapiens regularly reinvent parts and sometimes the entirety of their ways of life. So, you see anthropologists for 100 years have been doing what Peter Radford and Cesar Hidalgo suggest economists do. The transition, if economists attempt it will not be an easy one.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.