Home > Uncategorized > Chang’s “Edible Economics”

Chang’s “Edible Economics”

from Junaid Jahangir and current issue of RWER

[Ha-Joon] Chang’s latest book Edible Economics (2022) crystallizes the narrative that he has developed through his popular books over the years. . . . I have reviewed the salient ideas as follows in a bid to draw out lessons I could share with my ECON 101 students.

. . . the main ideas of Ha-Joon Chang can be distilled in point form as follows.

  1. Neoclassical economics gives precedence to mathematics over real-world issues of inequality and power. It emphasizes markets over democracy.
  2. Culture has elements both conducive and detrimental to development. Policy directs economic development, which then shapes culture.
  3. Free market advocates focus on the economic freedom of consumers and corporations and not the freedom of workers to push for better jobs.
  4. Poor people in poor countries are not poor because of low productivity but because the elites in their countries are unproductive, as they have failed to provide better technology and infrastructure.
  5. Comparative advantage is not static and can be developed with temporary protectionism. Britain, the U.S., and East Asian economies of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all used infant industry protection.
  6. Entrepreneurship rests on collective efforts; interlocking patents impede technological progress.
  7. Free trade is imposed on developing countries by advanced economies that used infant industry protection themselves.
  8. The benefits of foreign investment materialize only when public policy ensures technology transfer and management techniques.
  9. Neoliberal policies of trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization have brought slower growth, higher inequality, and financial crises; the secret of economic development is to access advanced technologies and develop high value-added industries.
  10. Welfare benefits including pension, healthcare, employment insurance, and housing subsidies are not freebies; they make capitalist economies more dynamic by reducing people’s resistance to technological change.
  11. People pay value added taxes and sales taxes that burden the poor, but corporations evade taxes.
  12. Equality of opportunity is not sufficient, and some equality of outcome is required, which necessitates equal access to education and healthcare, instituting a minimum wage, and redistributing income.
  13. The market does not value based on contribution or need; marketization of care services should be restricted and regulated.
  14. Both individual change and government action are required to address climate change, as the private sector is fixated on short term gains.
  15. Shareholders and managers focus on short term gains in deregulated markets; multi-stakeholder capitalism recognizes that workers have a long-term stake in the firm.
  16. Policy can help address automation with subsidies for retraining and by creating good jobs based on higher number of workers per people in education, healthcare, and senior care.
  17. The post-industrial economy is a myth; manufacturing is the main source of technological innovation and the most important determinant of a country’s living standard.

Read more

  1. April 15, 2024 at 10:33 pm

    If we compare the economy to a human body, have not regulators, with risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements, imposed a lousy diet with way too much carbs and way too little proteins?

    Has that not produced dangerous obesity? 😡

    https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2023/09/ai-chatgpt-openai-if-we-compare-economy.html

  2. Steven Klees
    April 16, 2024 at 6:02 pm

    I have not read Ha-Joon Chang’s work, only read of it.  I appreciated Junaid Jahangir’s summary of Edible Economics.  The 17 points in their RWER blog capture well the analysis of a liberal neoclassical economist who rejects neoliberal market fundamentalism and argues for the necessity of interventionist governments to tame the excesses of rapacious capitalism.  Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that liberal capitalism will fare much better than neoliberal capitalism has.  Prior to the 1980s many Western countries tried liberal capitalism – and some still do to some extent – but inequality and poverty, environmental destruction, racism, sexism, and more were and are still rampant.  Perhaps it is time for Chang and other liberal/left leaning neoclassical economists like Krugman, Reich, and Stiglitz to recognize that it is capitalism itself that is the problem, that we are not at the end of history or ideology, that even liberal neoclassical economics is a dead end, and that we need to find and create alternatives!  See https://evonomics.com/klees-neoclassical-economics-failed-what-comes-next/

    • April 17, 2024 at 2:39 pm

      The trouble with capitalism is how it was re-defined by John Bates Clark in 1900. Had the useful sites of land not then been included in the capital goods by which we apply as a factor of production, and subsequently had the land been restored in our reckoning as being the first factor of production (as originally explained by Adam Smith and David Ricardo), the the present confusion would not be causing so much complication. It would then allow us to more properly model the true situation as a whole and better explain how the social system thing REALLY works.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

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