In the first of this three part series, Simon Radford warns Liberals of their impending irrelevance, if they don't seize the opportunity now offered to them. Simon is a Provost Fellow at the University of Southern California

Liberalism has never been more relevant, but also in bigger danger of extinction. It is this essay’s argument that a defined liberal vision on economics is both well overdue and also never been more necessary: the opening up of economic debate post-2008 has given liberals an opportunity to unearth the liberal tradition in economics and assert its relevance, both for economics as a field, and for a voting public starving for a new progressive vision. It’s only by wholeheartedly embracing this vision that British liberalism can hope to survive in the long run. The good news? It was the people who carried on this buried liberal tradition who correctly identified the looming crash and have the most compelling analysis of its aftermath. The Liberal Democrats’ economic message lost its way in a Goldilocks approach of being a little less hot than the Tories and a little cooler than Labour; there has never been a more propitious time politically to solve the Liberal Democrats’ “economics problem”. And the answers are there if only the party is brave enough to look.

 

Paradigm shift

Do you remember when ‘serious people’ said that 9/11 changed everything? Instead of 2001, 2008 might well be the year that historians consider a more likely date for a watershed moment. The Financial Crash and the Great Recession laid waste to a way of seeing the world that had outrun its usefulness. Economics as an intellectual field had a small group of extremely powerful gatekeepers, many of whom took the same graduate seminar in macroeconomics at MIT. The definition of good scholarship had been set very narrowly and produced norms of intellectual inquiry that one would have to be mad or bad to ignore if one wanted an academic career (it is noticeable how private sector economists are a lot more plural in approach). The housing bubble, Financial Crash and the biggest global downturn since the 1930s, has thrown the field of economics into sharp disrepute: even the Queen asked economists at the Bank of England why no one saw this coming. Economists, politicians, and the public have started to ask- what is living and dead in the economics we learned at school and university? Is there a more fruitful way to look at the world?

Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher of science, calls this a “paradigm shift”, as one scientific research programme gives way to another, and an old framework is quickly and decisively cast aside. Imre Lakatos said that the old research programme has to be “degenerative” (i.e. uses more and more auxiliary hypotheses to explain inconvenient facts) and the new one “progressive” (i.e. a new bed of theory explains the same amount with fewer assumptions, or simply explains more). But science doesn’t take place in a vacuum: Foucault’s insight that science rests on political authority and is often used to control rather than liberate, can be seen, for example, in those peddling the creed of climate change denial or anti-vaccers. Those who benefit from the status quo, even if not fit for purpose, do not tend to give up positions of prominence so easily. Science is politically contested and better theory needs to be fought for. Institutions, from academic journals to university departments, are populated by those who have made a living from the old way of doing things. People fond of clinging to received wisdom and the organs of sensible moderation, from newspaper leader columns to former politicians, find the cognitive work of revising assumptions less preferable than shutting down new debate and clinging onto the wreckage of the old way of doing things. But bad theory can’t be propped up indefinitely. There is something in the air; a wind blows that is starting to shake political foundations. 2008 was a dagger at the heart of economics as it was previously studied. Whoever grasps the next political economic paradigm will surely reap the political rewards. The mushy political consensus of austerity and managed decline is not satisfying, intellectually or politically. This need to find an alternative is the greatest threat to liberalism, and the opportunity of a generation, if we would only grasp it.

Economics as a means, not an end

One of the most pernicious myths in British liberalism is that there are such things as “social liberals” and “economic liberals”. Anyone who identifies as an “economic liberal” and not a “social liberal” is, in fact, not a liberal at all. Liberalism has always been a political project whose aim was to provide the greatest possible array of capabilities and opportunities to everyone. That is the framework that liberals use to evaluate policy, including economics. Economics is not some policy area detached from the liberal way of seeing the world, it is integral to it. Economics is a servant to political ends, not its master. And an economic vision is what voters tend to judge parties on. If the Liberal Democrats can’t agree on what a liberal take on economics is, then it deserves to die. 

Liberalism has always existed on the Left of the political spectrum: from combatting corporate welfare in the Corn Laws to Beveridge’s blueprint for a welfare state. In some places the state should do less- like removing subsidies for the well-off- and in many more cases the state should do considerably more- properly funding engines of capabilities like schools, universities, hospitals and regulating in order to disperse power to the widest array of people. “Liberty without equality is of noble sound but squalid meaning”, as Hobhouse once wrote. In a country with scandalously high adult illiteracy, with wealth concentrated in few hands, and where social mobility is amongst the very lowest in the OECD, it is clear that Britain needs to be radically overhauled in order to be anywhere close to being liberal. But mainstream economics- and a an ideological diversion that claims to be “liberal” but is actually an impoverished version of libertarianism which wrongly sees private power concentration as “natural” and markets as emerging ex nihilo without state power enforcing its rules- seems to set limits to what can be achieved. We must either fit inside a dying paradigm or found a new one. 2008 serves as a great political opportunity to be both better liberals, and to be at the forefront of seeing the world more clearly. In order to do so, we need a quick history lesson in how economics has come to crisis.

Click here for part two


Showing 24 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sorry, typo. “New” should be “Use”
  • Paul puts it better than, perhaps, I was able. It also helps to retire a new of the term “economic liberalism” which is misnamed. Economics associated with liberalism, as I suggest in the article, is a grand tradition split between orthodox Keynesians and post-Keynesians. It isn’t about whether private contractors should do slightly more or less in the NHS, or the use of private finance to meet social ends etc. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be both a (post-)Keynesian and have all manner of views on what organisational structure better serves liberal ends in public services.
  • I don’t understand why you and Simon aren’t already in agreement with one another Andrew. If some one is otherwise liberal but has a dogmatic desire to collectivise or to privatise, regardless of (as the author nicely puts it) furthering individual flourishing in terms of capabilities and opportunities, then they’re not being philosophically liberal. But no one seems to be advocating such an approach so, even if we are rowing at different speeds, we’ seem in the same boat
  • Actually, I just read your fourth paragraph. It seems you’re arguing over our shared position.
  • Andrew, if you’ll permit me to defend my position. You can favour the state doing less and still be a liberal. You are a liberal, though, not because you want the state to do less, but that you think a policy change promotes the liberal ends of individual flourishing in terms of capabilities and opportunities. Indeed, you could argue in favour of greater state involvement…. only for the same reasons. Essentially, the so-called divide between “social liberals” and “economic liberals” is, and never has been, a meaningful difference. I believe that liberals should be open-minded and agnostic about means as long as it delivers liberal ends. If you support certain means (greater government OR smaller government) even when it runs against liberal ends, is it that much of a stretch to argue that that person isn’t a liberal?
  • When the SLF started, I attended it’s first conference, I hoped it would be an engine room for debate and lead to a battle of strong ideas within the party. Instead, we’ve been reduced to this.:

    “Anyone who identifies as an “economic liberal” and not a “social liberal” is, in fact, not a liberal at all” – Utterly divisive dribble which has a strong hint that economic liberals do no not belong in the party.

    Indeed, Mr Radford going on to emphasize just how much historically liberalism favoured his chosen position, and indeed not one of economic liberalism is another sop to that. Apart from being a-historical, it’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of where the divide has grown.

    Most economic liberals i know tend to favour smaller government, and more economic solutions to reach liberal endings rather than the SLF view of more/better government to reach the same ending point. To simply state that this divide is non-existant, that those who favour the former are somehow not liberals is either ignorant and divisive or deliberately ignorant.

    I’m ashamed on behalf of the SLF, no really i am.
  • I see you’ve doubled down on asserting my position, despite being corrected as to what that position is. Jolly good.
  • Well, thank you for addressing me like I am 5. I am sure it has warmed me to your position, begun as it was with a perfectly ridiculous sweeping assertion. Once again, it is disappointing to see the SLF giving space to an author who is out to push people out of the party if they do not share their label. Given the dire straits we are in, it is rather like one bald man declaring another has no right to his comb. Perhaps you would find a more welcoming tone useful next time?
  • Your initial suspicion was formed from about 3 short paragraphs. You’d do better to read what I wrote before working yourself up into a tizzy about what you suspect I probably think. And I think it’s a bit rich to troll the comment section of someone else’s article, admitting not even undertaking a cursory reading of the comment under question, and then accusing of the other person of being a troll! Listen, I have no wish to pick a fight with some random in a comment section- I have better things to do with my time- but you’ll see that I argue the distinction between economic liberals and social liberals is meaningless. Liberalism is liberalism. Ironically, it is you who seem to be intent on dividing a common creed into warring factions, mistaking means and ends while doing so. But, then, you’d know that if you’d bothered to read the article. Again, I hope you have a great weekend.
  • Rather, there is no proper authority for who is and is not a Liberal – and certainly not you. I am somewhat glad you said that, because it confirmed my initial suspicion you’re simply hoping to troll people like me, and pressure us out of the party we call home, because our Liberalism is different from yours, and you’re uncomfortable with a broad-church party.
  • “No earthly authority”? I suppose only God has the ability to categorise ideological positions. Silly me. You seem upset and unwilling to even read the justification for the rather silly thing to which you have taken umbrage. I am somehow glad, however, that you have taken the time to let me know how you feel. Hope you have a great weekend!
  • Mr Radford – I have little intention with engaging with a man who has already decided in his opening statement to claim I am not a Liberal, with no earthly authority to do so. Perhaps if you had written in a more constructive tone I might have continued with this endeavour?
  • Tim, a pity that you couldn’t bring yourself to engage with the argument when your priors were challenged, and to use such a non-constructive tone. A shame. I hope you give yourself, and the piece, another chance.
  • “Anyone who identifies as an “economic liberal” and not a “social liberal” is, in fact, not a liberal at all. " And I stopped reading after that. What earthly qualification does Mr Radford possess that makes him the supreme arbiter of who is a liberal and who is not? Not one from any recognised institution, I expect. No point engaging with a man who makes such sweeping assertions early on. A shame to see the SLF pushing such nonsense.
  • @soclibforum tweeted this page. 2015-08-21 22:15:07 +0100
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One) on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-08-21 22:15:07 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One)
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One) on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-08-21 22:15:07 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One)
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One) on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-08-21 22:15:07 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One)
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One) on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-08-21 22:15:07 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One)
  • And gold hasn’t exactly conformed to their expectations either!
  • “….and its aftermath”. Austrian economics, alas, does not suffer from all the pathologies of traditional neoclassical economics, but they still have done a pretty poor job in terms of analysis and predictions. I think we’re all still waiting for that hyperinflation from the Obama stimulus! lol
  • Like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul?
  • @soclibforum tweeted this page. 2015-08-17 09:00:09 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One of three) by @sradford22 http://www.socialliberal.net/shouldn_t_we_listen_to_those_who_predicted_the_crash_part_one?recruiter_id=1676
  • Social Liberal Forum posted about Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One) on Social Liberal Forum's Facebook page 2015-08-17 09:00:09 +0100
    Shouldn’t We Listen to Those Who Predicted the Crash? (Part One of three) by @sradford22