| Editorial |
“Know then thyself”, admonished Alexander Pope, and that is perhaps the leitmotif of this issue of our Journal.
Thus we begin with Christopher Lake’s examination of what it means to be an economist. Unexpectedly he is not concerned with our knowledge of the economy or our ability to formulate and solve econometric models. That he takes for granted. He asks instead how our expertise is properly deployed, and “what it is to be true to your expertise”. In seeking an answer to those questions he explores two themes: the first relates to ethics, to the responsibilities that face economists in exercising their expertise, and the second relates to our perceptions of ourselves as ‘professional’. His exploration starts from the results of a survey of senior economists in the United Kingdom and goes on to consider some particular dilemmas that confront them – us – at work. And if we do face ethical dilemmas Lake goes on to ask whether economists should give more formal shape to their profession, a shape that might encompass a code of ethics to help in resolving dilemmas and a warranty of competence. Your Editor remembers his work as an economist as more of a continuing scramble to meet the deadlines of board meetings, planning cycles and business operations and without much time for refined reflection, but nevertheless we will all recognise the issues Lake identifies, and, if we can overlook his arch assignment of feminine gender to the economist, his argument is full of interest. |
| Julian Gough’s analysis of the economics of climate change policies perhaps exemplifies some of the dilemmas that Lake identifies, of speaking (possible) truth unto power, or at least consensus, and of knowing when (or not) to compromise. For he takes up an unusual standpoint. Let us consider, he says, the economic implications of pursuing policies to deal with global warming based on the belief that human economic activity, and the carbon emissions it creates, are the principal engine of that warming if in fact it is not. He argues that to achieve the reductions in carbon emissions that are planned simply by reducing economic activity could have catastrophic consequences, while none of the policies proposed to mitigate this by reducing the carbon intensity of economic activity seem likely to do enough, soon enough, entirely to avoid massive costs. One pessimistic conclusion might be that if he is right then, whether man-made global warming is happening or not, the policies presently being pursued may be rejected as their consequences come home to people. |
| An altogether less refined matter of self-interest is explored in our report of the Society’s annual Salary Survey. It shows business economists’ earnings holding up quite well last year despite the recession that had taken hold of the economy. Yes, average earnings were down but not by much, and, yes, the average bonus paid was significantly lower but just as many members reported receiving one. Those in financial services reported the biggest changes in remuneration, but it was by no means always negative, while the average earnings of those members whose principal activity is management were significantly higher than in our last survey. We must only wonder how it is that of those responding to a survey of business economists more are engaged principally in management than in any other type of activity. |
| Speakers Corner offers a more conventional perspective, with reports of Bill Dudley’s address at the Society’s Annual Dinner when he sketched a programme for reform and stability, of Professor Mark Salmon’s Masterclass in new measures of risk for assessing market valuations, and of Wolfgang Munchau’s rather pessimistic view of the future of the euro, which he thought would lose some members. But the report of the meeting reviving the Society’s Statistics Group for the discussion of developments in UK statistics reminds us that we have to keep our expertise. |
| As does the wide range of books reviewed which includes many challenging titles such as Identity Economics, The Relentless Revolution, Aftershock and, John Kay’s new work, Obliquity. We should notice them all if we are not to deserve Pope’s conclusion: that the economist may be “alike in ignorance, his reason such, whether he thinks too little or too much”. |
Jim Hirst
Editor |
|