been economists in politics; Paul Douglas, Phil Gramm and Dick Armey all were influential economists and politicians in the USA and there are many others in government all around the world. One would think that the two go hand in hand yet, in most cases, roles which could be considered ‘economic’, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer (who controls the government’s monetary and fiscal policy), do not have any economic expertise. George Osborne, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, did a degree in modern history, Alistair Darling in Law, Gordon Brown in History and John Major managed an O level in Maths and Economics but that was all. I do not question whether these roles were carried out well or not but rather who could have served the economy better, elected politicians or appointed economists? It is important to note that although the aforementioned Chancellors might not be trained economists, they would have a team of economists behind them guiding and advising. It is the Chancellor’s job to take this economic information and translate it into beneficial policies and it is in this translation that the best economic decisions can be lost. For instance, depending on the Chancellor’s political party, they may decide to ignore or promote certain economic policies. For example, a Conservative Chancellor may be more likely to abandon a progressive taxation system in order appease the voters who voted his/her party in. This is called public choice theory; when economic self-interest is the driving force of politics, not economic welfare. It is also important to be aware that there are appointed economic positions already. The Bank of England, which is in charge of monetary policy, has various appointment committees. Mark Carney took over as the governor of the Bank of England in 2013 with no public election process. Would it not be appropriate to vote in your party to all aspects of government, especially such an influential cog of the economy? Currently the government can only dictate what monetary policy there is in 'extreme' circumstances. The argument for appointed Bank of England positions is that monetary policy takes such a long time to come to fruition that a government’s actions in one term, if they were capable of altering monetary policy, would not necessarily be felt or be worthwhile. A change in interest rates does not usually have a noticeable effect in the economy until two to three years down the line. Thus, by having an unelected committee the goals of the Bank of England (2% inflation and stable economic growth) can be achieved without pretty party politics interfering. So, the case stands that sometimes an unelected committee is beneficial but why not for all government economic responsibilities? As we mentioned before, economists must base their conclusions on evidence and data, and aim to be as impartial as possible just as professionals in any other science. Politics is not impartial a lot of the time; not all politicians are corrupt or exploitative, but it is a party’s goal to get in power and stay in power. Thus, by making decisions which boost support in your party you are achieving this goal, even if they are subjectively the best decisions. Of course what is subjective and objective in the realm of politics is in itself subjective. So using this logic an economist could be 'argued' into parliament. This is effectively what Italy did post Berlusconi; Mario Monti, an Italian economist, served as the Prime Minister of Italy, despite being unelected, from 2011 to 2013, leading a government of technocrats in the wake of the Italian debt crisis. His reforms to Italy's economy were much needed, but several changes regarding firing staff were met by strong labour union opposition and, upon stepping down and then standing in the election of 2013, his party only managed fourth place with 10.4% of the vote. Italy's economy is back on the mend, but slowly. Another dilemma when discussing economists in power is what makes their government good? Again, this is hugely subjective but by simply looking at stats, for example growing GDP, this does not always equate to a good let alone popular government. Margaret Thatcher is an easy example which comes to mind;
26
Made with FlippingBook Annual report