Markets and Metis: Reading Hayek with Scott

Institutions and Development: Markets, Ideas, and Bottom-Up Change Authors: Bryan Cheang and Tom Palmer Published by Springer   This book …

Read here The use of algorithms in society Author: Cass Sunstein Published by Review of Austrian Economics *This paper is …

‘Too much’ and ‘too little’ content moderation: Internet governance as a case study in advanced liberal modes of government Author: …

Central banks today face four daunting informational challenges. First, they must relearn inflation control in a world with multiple complex drivers of inflation. Second, to discharge their responsibilities and enhanced lender of last resort and market maker of last resort they must learn how to value and price systemically important financial assets when markets are disorderly. Third, they must manage the ongoing digitization of the financial system – including DeFi, stablecoins, on-chain bank deposit tokens and CBDCs. Fourth, they must manage the systemic political economy uncertainty associated with the central bank’s inescapable role as a fiscal agent of the state – something that poses an unavoidable, permanent threat to central bank operational independence in the pursuit of price stability.

In this paper, Pablo Paniagua explains the limits of contemporary macroeconomics from a complexity perspective.

In this article, Bryan Cheang writes about the historical legacies of British colonialism in Singapore and Hong Kong and the bottom-up nature of institutional evolution in these cases.

This book provides a fresh perspective on the debate over the role of the state in East Asia’s development history. Comparing the post-war development policies of Singapore and Hong Kong, it argues that their strong economic performances preceded and persisted despite, not because of, developmental state policies. While both nations are not pure free markets, the Hong Kong economy comes closer to that ideal and exhibited clear advantages over state-driven Singapore, in terms of greater levels of indigenous entrepreneurship, productivity and innovation. The book highlights the complex ways in which states penetrate markets, which are often neglected in liberal accounts of Hong Kong and Singapore as ‘free-market success stories’. At the same time, it also stands as a cautionary tale on the use of non-comprehensive development planning in the twenty-first century, where an unprecedented degree of complexity complicates economic policy and industrial upgrading. The book renews the case for economic liberalism in development policy through a unique Asian cultural lens.

The IT revolution, underway since around 1980, has featured mediocre growth and rising geographic, educational, and generational inequality. This stands in stark contrast to the broad prosperity and convergence experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. We attribute this change to a swivel in the leading edge of productivity growth away from manufacturing largely present in towns to information technology mainly housed in “superstar” cities. Using a spatial model, we show how this can explain: rising prosperity and rapid housing inflation in “superstar” cities; falling relative wages in towns and the countryside; mediocre aggregate productivity due to increasing misallocation of labor; the loss of manufacturing jobs, especially in cities; and falling migration.

This paper reconstructs Carl Menger’s theory of economic development centered around the growth of knowledge. Menger made knowledge central to the economic process, long before this was done more widely in economics. His work draws attention to two different types of knowledge, shared cognitive and institutional frameworks which help create coherent and integrated markets on the one hand, and, on the other hand, private—increasingly specialized and differentiated—knowledge used in the production of heterogenous (capital) goods. We situate Menger’s work on economic development in the evolutionary endogenous growth tradition going back to Bernard Mandeville and Adam Smith, and later developed by Alfred Marshall, Allyn Young, Ludwig Lachmann, and others. We use these insights to suggest that one of the crucial questions of economic organization is (1) the complementarity between the two types of knowledge we identify here, and (2) the extent to which knowledge is a part of shared social infrastructures rather than being organized privately within firms and other organizations.

This article explores the limits of central industrial planning through a case study of the developmental state of Singapore. While previous scholars argued that successful industrial planning is impossible, this paper takes a different and modest position. Singapore’s industrial policy is acknowledged to have - to an extent - contributed to genuine economic development but its state-heavy approach, by crowding out local enterprises, led to unintended consequences in the form of poor productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship performance. This paper is relevant to contemporary discussions about mission-oriented industrial policy and the entrepreneurial state.

The paper attempts to outline a general theory of knowledge in economics based on the work of Harold Demsetz. We identify that “knowledge encapsulation” is a key Demsetzian idea that could unite the otherwise fragmented or narrow research on knowledge in economics. The knowledge encapsulation concept holds that mobilizing cognitive resources and acting under full knowledge is costly. This creates an incentive to compress knowledge into an algorithmic form, which can then be transferred in a cost-efficient manner between a multitude of agents. From this idea of Demsetz, we create a simple theoretical model.

This essay examines certain epistemic problems facing administrative states’ efforts to draft efficient regulations for their societies. Sam DeCanio argues that the absence of observable policy counterfactuals frustrates efforts to assess the efficiency of administrative states’ decisions, as it is impossible to determine whether different policies would have generated greater benefits at lower cost than the policy the state implemented.