Deregulation and market failure

flattr this!

The older I get, the more cyn­i­cal I become about gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion in the economy.

That state­ment might appear to be either a recan­ta­tion of every­thing I’ve ever argued, or a sign of the usual tale of left-wingers mov­ing to the right, and right-wingers to the left, as life expe­ri­ence tem­pers youth­ful exu­ber­ance. It’s nei­ther (well, okay, maybe it’s a bit of the lat­ter), because my devel­op­ing posi­tion reflects the com­plex­i­ties of a mixed economy.

The lat­est real world expe­ri­ence that has pushed me fur­ther into cyn­i­cism about gov­ern­ment is a very per­sonal one: an attempt by the Aus­tralian gov­ern­ment to increase com­pe­ti­tion in edu­ca­tion via dereg­u­la­tion is the direct cause of the pro­posal to ter­mi­nate the eco­nom­ics pro­gram at my uni­ver­sity. The pol­icy change will actu­ally reduce com­pe­ti­tion in the edu­ca­tion mar­ket­place in Aus­tralia: the mar­ket was more com­pet­i­tive with the pre­ced­ing reg­u­la­tions in place.

An update though: UWS has now decided to at least pre­serve a major (8 units) in Eco­nom­ics within the Bach­e­lor of Busi­ness. This is progress, and UWS is to be com­mended for respond­ing sen­si­bly to the enor­mous neg­a­tive feed­back that the orig­i­nal pro­posal received. But this is still short of the Bach­e­lor of Eco­nom­ics we cur­rently have, so some influ­ence from the pub­lic to per­suade UWS to main­tain this unique degree would be very valuable.

Also, a reader on Busi­ness Spec­ta­tor pointed out that I got my maths wrong in the exam­ple of ice-cream ven­dors on the beach: the opti­mal posi­tions for the cus­tomers with 2 ven­dors on the beach is the 25% and 75% loca­tion. Put the poor ini­tial maths down to … well, I expect you can guess what.

For more of this post, click here.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Deregulation and market failure

  1. ken says:

    This change is prob­a­bly just coin­ci­den­tal with the changes to stu­dent num­bers. What is hap­pen­ing is that uni­ver­si­ties seem to feel that cross-subsidisation within depart­ments is no longer appro­pri­ate. Under the old sys­tem a depart­ment with a lot of ser­vice teach­ing could sup­port a lot of uneco­nomic courses. Under the new model that uni­ver­si­ties use, the money is used to sub­sidise aca­d­e­mics in areas where there is a large amount of research money avail­able, such as physics. It is also very “safe” research, in that it can guar­an­tee a stream of papers, so it looks productive.

  2. Geoff Davies says:

    The funny thing about com­pe­ti­tion is — it elim­i­nates competitors!

    Yes, the excel­lent ANU School of Music was recently trashed because it allegedly wasn’t pay­ing its way.

    The prob­lem is the same old mer­ce­nary men­tal­ity of neoliberalism/managerialism, intro­duced by Keat­ing, Dawkins et al (the ANU Chan­cel­lor is Gareth Evans, and guess what, they want to expand “pol­icy stud­ies” or some such rub­bish). An insti­tu­tion that merely fol­lows the money is not a university.

  3. Jono says:

    The older I get, the more cyn­i­cal I become about gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion in the economy.”

    Steve Keen a lib­er­tar­ian ? We’ll make you one of us eventually !

    Just about every­body else who pre­dicted the finan­cial cri­sis and under­stands the unwanted con­se­quences of gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tions in money and bank­ing is a libertarian.

    It isn’t really about left ver­sus right, thats a false par­a­digm. It really is about gov­ern­ment con­trol ver­sus free­dom and individualism.

  4. Bhaskara II says:

    Van­dals par­tially retreat!

    ” ‘Van­dals’ dump core uni sub­jects of eco­nom­ics, languages “*

    Prof­Steve­Keen .@YSIBerlin UWS will keep a Major in Eco­nom­ics in Busi­ness Degree (8 units). We want to keep our Bach­e­lor of Eco­nom­ics too (12–16 Units) 6 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite ”

    Impres­sive. Push on!

    In the schools expla­na­tions there has been no men­tion on the schools respon­si­bil­i­ties to pro­vide the edu­ca­tion promised to the cur­rent crop of stu­dents! The pay­ing cus­tomers offered degree pro­grams in xyz. The school has taken money from the stu­dents. The school is respon­si­ble to them to deliver their end of the con­tract. No stu­dent goes to a school expect­ing that their degree pro­gram would be cut off before their graduation.

    The school has the oblig­a­tion to see the present stu­dents through their whole edu­ca­tion! That should give every one some more breath­ing room, or end this stu­pid­ity right now.

    *http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/vandals-dump-core-uni-subjects-of-economics-languages/story-e6frgcjx-1226514726296

  5. Ales Praprotnik says:

    @Jono: I agree that it is about free­dom and indi­vid­u­al­ism, but this also brings respon­si­bil­ity. We can­not expect social respon­si­bil­ity from totally dereg­u­lated finan­cial sec­tor. As Michael Hud­son stresses in his lat­est book The Bub­ble and beyond: the mar­kets are always cen­trally planned: either by gov­ern­ment or by the pri­vate sec­tor. In the case of finan­cial sec­tor, the banks would do the cen­tral plan­ning in the case of absent gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion — and we now know where this is leading.

  6. herman kuper says:

    Your head is in the clouds Keen, instead of look­ing at macro this and alpha delta that look at the real world. Houses are sell­ing the same they always have, prices are not mov­ing, a 0.XX % change in dif­fer­ent areas means noth­ing. You have been talk­ing of the hous­ing price crash for years and noth­ing has changed. Any­way im off to buy, c yallllll

  7. Bankster says:

    Steve, I think it IS about a leftie mov­ing to the right, you just don’t want to admit it to your­self (it hap­pened to me a while ago, but I am push­ing 70 now). When I see the fan­tas­tic edu­ca­tion my grand­chil­dren are receiv­ing in a pri­vate school and com­pare to the hope­less gov­ern­ment schools my own chil­dren attended, I feel very guilty indeed.

  8. Steve Hummel says:

    Regard­ing http://t.co/n6LxWX2b

    What is more fun­da­men­tal to mon­i­tor money (dou­ble entry book­keep­ing) or cost? (cost account­ing) It’s the lat­ter of course. Fac­tor in that veloc­ity the­ory is fal­la­cious, and that export­ing is not only not a solu­tion to the tyranny of cost accounting’s scarce mon­e­tary effects because it remains inside of com­merce and is also just a can kick­ing mech­a­nism that invites over pro­duc­tion and waste, and it becomes even more clear that a mon­e­tary pol­icy of Grace, the free gift cou­pled with tech­no­log­i­cal effi­ciency and sus­tain­abil­ity is the answer.

  9. SeanS says:

    Uni­ver­si­ties do not exist to offer cushy and largely tax­payer funded employ­ment to aca­d­e­mics and oth­ers. They are sup­posed to fill a demand­ing need for advanced qual­ity edu­ca­tion for the ben­e­fit of the com­mu­nity and nation. From what I have wit­nessed they do not do this very effi­ciently. They cer­tainly do not make effi­cient use of human resources or the enor­mously expen­sive infra­struc­ture, both of which is unused for lengthy peri­ods of the year. But then high lev­els of effi­ciency were never applic­a­ble to any­thing that is largely Gov­ern­ment run in this country.

    You men­tioned in your article:

    Now that open slather is per­mit­ted, stu­dents have responded by apply­ing for courses only at the top-ranked uni­ver­si­ties. So now, as the cur­rent aca­d­e­mic year ends, the pro­jected intake into UWS’s eco­nom­ics pro­gram is cat­a­stroph­i­cally low. In pre­vi­ous years we had well over 100 appli­cants for our first year intake at this point. This year, we have just 19.”

    Stu­dents are well aware of how par­tic­u­lar uni­ver­si­ties are per­ceived and how var­i­ous courses within these insti­tu­tions are regarded. Word gets around very quickly. The fact that out of thou­sands of NSW poten­tial entrants you could only dredge up a cou­ple of hand­fuls of appli­cants should tell you some­thing about how the UWS and the course is perceived.

    I have an eco­nom­ics degree from a Tier One Uni­ver­sity and frankly I would not be inter­ested in doing a course at a sec­ond tier insti­tu­tion. It seems many oth­ers have a sim­i­lar view and are vot­ing with their feet so to speak.

    As for select­ing stu­dents solely on their HSC per­for­mance – it’s some­what of a joke. I have seen many high graded stu­dents bomb out in their first year at uni­ver­sity. Any intel­li­gent aver­age stu­dent with the appro­pri­ate basics behind them for the course can get through a uni­ver­sity degree. I have seen quite a few so called ordi­nary stu­dents scor­ing hon­ours results in most of their sub­jects on courses com­pleted. It is just a mat­ter of hav­ing decent teach­ers (and some of them are totally sub stan­dard qual­ity) good per­sonal orga­ni­za­tion, hard work, cor­rect focus and appli­ca­tion to your work.

    You men­tioned:

    ….to the intro­duc­tion of HECS (the “Higher Edu­ca­tion Con­tri­bu­tion Scheme”) – which was sup­posed to make stu­dents con­tribute to the cost of their edu­ca­tion, and has instead resulted in a stu­dent body more focused on earn­ing money to pay fees than study­ing and learn­ing (there: I’ve now earned my grumpy old man badge).”

    Ho hum. Good on those who get off their back­sides, get some valu­able work expe­ri­ence and earn some cash — as well as study. It’s far bet­ter than play­ing pool and drink­ing down the pub. By the way employ­ers are far more inter­ested in peo­ple with doc­u­mented work expe­ri­ence than some­one who has gone straight from school to uni­ver­sity and has lit­tle clue about how busi­ness oper­ates or the dis­ci­plines of hold­ing down and per­form­ing well in an employ­ment role.

    Eco­nom­ics degrees and many other degrees are largely about learn­ing stuff out of text­books. It is nec­es­sary ground­ing but the real world mostly does not run that way.
    As a young lawyer grad­u­ate from Mel­bourne Uni fre­quently used to say to me, “I did not appre­ci­ate how lit­tle I really knew about the law until I started work­ing in it.” I could add more but won’t bore people.

    You are obvi­ously not happy with things as they are devel­op­ing. Well Uni­ver­si­ties are not Gulags that imprison aca­d­e­mic staff.

    You and any­one else that is not happy is free to leave and seek alter­na­tive employment.

    So throw your­self on the job mar­ket and see how you go. I am sure there are cor­po­rates out there that would be happy to have a look at you. Then you can enjoy work­ing 50–60 plus hours a week (with 4 weeks annual leave) like the rest of us. Unfor­tu­nately, at the end of the day and week you will be so tired I doubt you will have much energy to run your exten­sive blog or to engage in many extra cur­ric­u­lar activities.

    Any­how good luck with it.

  10. Andrew Rabbitt says:

    Despite the bad maths, Steve’s ice­cream ven­dor anal­ogy is filled with bad assump­tions and using it to call for mar­ket­place reg­u­la­tion to improve effi­ciency is a furphy.

    In a real com­pet­i­tive mar­ket place, the ven­dors would use all of their avail­able resources to improve their sales vol­ume, includ­ing devel­op­ing sophis­ti­cated ambu­la­tion tech­nol­ogy that would allow mobile vend­ing along the entire beach.

    Also, it’s ironic that the guy who rails against the eco­nomic the­ory of equi­lib­rium com­plains bit­terly when a lit­tle bit of dis­e­qui­lib­rium arrives in his per­sonal marketplace…

  11. Luke Davis says:

    For­give my igno­rance but how does a mar­ket fail. To my mind either there is a mar­ket (things are being bought/sold, regard­less of wether the value is for a fair price or not some­one thinks it is or they wouldn’t buy) or there is no mar­ket (no one wants your goods)

    There can cer­tainly be rigged mar­kets, over­priced mar­kets, monop­oly mar­kets. But how does a mar­ket actu­ally fail. If I try and sell steam engines for cars I am not likely to make a sale. The mar­ket didn’t fail, it just told me my steam engines couldn’t be sold at the price I was asking.

  12. Steve Hummel says:

    Mar­kets would be fine. We’ve just never actu­ally had one. And no I’m not your friendly neigh­bor­hood Aus­trian cultist and mar­ket wor­shiper. Mar­kets CAN“T work, not because of gov­ern­ment, although gov­ern­ment is also often a prob­lem, but because the REAL cause of our finan­cial and eco­nomic insta­bil­ity has not been acknowl­edged and then the proper cor­rec­tive mech­a­nisms uti­lized to make sure we have the con­di­tions for a true mar­ket to actu­ally exist.….in perpetuity.

  13. Inter­est­ing sit­u­a­tion. Reminds me of com­pe­ti­tion in the evo­lu­tion of hominids. There were many dif­fer­ent species but after com­pe­ti­tion only humans remained, the best over­all in leav­ing off­spring. If every­one wants to do courses at just a few uni’s they will become wealth­ier and increase their capac­ity in terms of more Lec­ture the­aters, hir­ing more eco­nom­ics pro­fes­sors, etc.. Per­haps more diver­sity from within the new larger depart­ments. Oth­er­wise Steve, start your own think­tank and con­sul­tancy. If things keep going this way there will only be a few huge uni’s or a few smaller ones with a few spe­cialty depart­ments only. The way the FIRE sec­tor seems to run the world the only courses worth doing will be finance or struc­tured finance, they make a mock­ery of all other pro­fes­sions and occupations!

  14. Jan Milch says:

    Robert Lucas gob­s­mack­ing stu­pidi­ties on debt– Pro­fes­sor Lars Påls­son Syll Malmö Uni­ver­sity
    20 Novem­ber, 2012 at 18:08
    http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/robert-lucas-gobsmacking-stupidities-on-debt/

    Inter­viewed in a Swedish Tele­vi­sion documen-tary on the the eco­nomic cri­sis (aired yes­ter­day on SvT), Nobel lau­re­ate Robert Lucas answered a ques­tion (wind to 19:40 in the pro­gramme here http://www.svtplay.se/video/591940/19–11-del-2-av-3 ) if the level of debt was a prob­lem, by telling us that the high level of debt is not an inter­est­ing prob­lem, since, for a coun­try as a whole, debt and credit always “can­cel out.” Unbe­liev­able stu­pid­ity even to come from a Chicago econ­o­mist. For­tu­nately Dirk Beze­mer and Steve Keen were also inter­viewed and could sort things out and give a more sen­si­ble view on the increas­ing indebt­ed­ness of mod­ern economies.

    Debt-deflation and austerity-Professor Lars Påls­son Syll-Malmö Uni­ver­sity
    20 Novem­ber, 2012 at 21:24 http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/debt-deflation-and-austerity/
    Some of my read­ers have asked me if there really is any dif­fer­ence between solv­ing the liq­uid­ity trap by low­er­ing real wages via infla­tion or by low­er­ing nom­i­nal wages. Are they not equiv­a­lent measures?

    No, they are not!
    As John May­nard Keynes wrote in Gen­eral The­ory (1936):

    The method of increas­ing the quan­tity of money in terms of wage-units by decreas­ing the wage-unit increases pro­por­tion­ately the bur­den of debt; whereas the method of pro­duc­ing the same result by increas­ing the quan­tity of money whilst leav­ing the wage-unit unchanged has the oppo­site effect. Hav­ing regard to the exces­sive bur­den of many types of debt, it can only be an inex­pe­ri­enced per­son who would pre­fer the for­mer … If a sag­ging rate of inter­est has to be brought about by a sag­ging wage-level … there is … a dou­ble rea­son for putting off invest­ment and thus post­pon­ing recovery.

    Or as Irv­ing Fisher – the orig­i­na­tor of the debt-deflation the­ory – wrote in Debt-Deflation The­ory of Great Depres­sions (Econo­met­rica, 1933):

    In sum­mary, we find that: (1) eco­nomic changes include steady trends and unsteady occa­sional dis­tur­bances which act as starters for cycli­cal oscil­la­tions of innu­mer­able kinds; (2) among the many occa­sional dis­tur­bances, are new oppor­tu­ni­ties to invest, espe­cially because of new inven­tions; (3) these, with other causes, some­times con­spire to lead to a great vol­ume of over-indebtedness; (4) this in turn, leads to attempts to liq­ui­date; (5) these, in turn, lead (unless coun­ter­acted by refla­tion) to falling prices or a swelling dol­lar; (6) the dol­lar may swell faster than the num­ber of dol­lars owed shrinks; (7) in that case, liq­ui­da­tion does not really liq­ui­date but actu­ally aggra­vates the debts, and the depres­sion grows worse instead of bet­ter, as indi­cated by all nine fac­tors; (8) the ways out are either lais­sez faire (bank­ruptcy) or sci­en­tific med­ica­tion (refla­tion), and refla­tion might just as well have been applied in the first place.

    Aus­ter­ity poli­cies will only bring our economies deep into the kind of debt-deflationary depres­sions that Fisher and Keynes warned us of in the 1930s.

  15. Derek R says:

    Yes, I watched that pro­gram ear­lier today. Eng­lish sub­ti­tles for the Swedish parts would help but even with­out them the pro­gram flow and the cam­era work makes the Swedish parts rea­son­ably obvi­ous plus nearly all the inter­views are in Eng­lish. So it was excel­lent even for a non-Swedish speaker like me.

  16. Ed Beaugard says:

    Hi Steve,

    …an attempt by the Aus­tralian gov­ern­ment to increase com­pe­ti­tion in edu­ca­tion via dereg­u­la­tion is the direct cause of the pro­posal to ter­mi­nate the eco­nom­ics pro­gram at my university…”

    I don’t under­stand.
    How is this an argu­ment against gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion of mar­kets? It’s exactly because the gov­ern­ment de-regulated parts of higher ed that the uni­ver­sity is propos­ing to elim­i­nate the eco­nom­ics depart­ment, not that some­how too much reg­u­la­tion caused the USW to con­sider these changes.

    Baf­fled in Belchertown(Massachusetts),
    Ed Beaugard

  17. Philip Martin says:

    Totally off-topic but I heard Steve men­tion on Cap­i­tal Account (I think) the five or six uni­ver­sity eco­nom­ics depts that still offer a sig­nif­i­cantly het­ero­dox approach to eco­nom­ics. Obvi­ously the UWS is one, the Uni­ver­sity of Missouri-Kansas City another…what would the oth­ers be? Any­one know? Are any in the UK where I’m from?
    Any help greatly appre­ci­ated from reg­u­lar read­ers (I just reg­is­tered today).

  18. PT says:

    The joy of a uni edu­ca­tion is that the lec­tur­ers have noth­ing bet­ter to do than to teach you every­thing you need to know to get a thor­ough under­stand­ing of the sub­ject at hand.

    The tyranny of pri­va­tised learn­ing, (e.g. appren­tice­ship, learn­ing on the job) is that you are taught the absolute bare min­i­mum in order to turn a profit as soon as pos­si­ble. Under­stand­ing is given a sec­ondary role.

    When uni­ver­si­ties are dri­ven to max­i­mize prof­its instead of max­i­miz­ing under­stand­ing, the unis lose rel­e­vance in the world. Profit-wise, they will never com­pete with on-the-job train­ing. If they sac­ri­fice teach­ing, learn­ing, under­stand­ing, then as an insti­tu­tion they are finished.

Leave a Reply