The Nobel laureate that never was

Joan Robinson was the conscience-keeper of economics as a discipline, choosing values over value in a profound reflection on what we value in life and how far our priorities correspond to those of the market. The greatest economist of her generation, she remains the Nobel laureate that never was, and the Nobel Prize is poorer for that.

Joan Robinson argued a simple principle: Values are embedded in all of economics; that individual choice is influenced by values -- by conscience or the lack of it -- rather than mere rational self-interest. The questions that engage economists and how they pursue them are not matters of pure reason alone but rather also the product of values. The principle that ‘all people are equal,’ Robinson argues is open to interpretations, few of which allow for measurement and thus empirical testing. Though this kind of statement is metaphysical, the way economists interpret it is foundational for the research agendas it generates. The work of this Cambridge economist is primarily grounded in the Keynesian school, and Robinson has many classics to her credit. If you were to choose one book, it has to be Economic Philosophy (EP).

Joan Robinson’s EP, first published in 1962, was received enthusiastically by all those seeking an alternative to the pro-market status quo. “Economics has always been partly a vehicle for the ruling ideology of each period as well as partly a method of scientific investigation. It limps along with one foot in untested hypotheses and the other in untestable slogans. Here our task is to sort out as best we may this mixture of ideology and science.” With these iconic words, Joan Robinson introduces this little but profound book that has since become a classic. Joan has made some of the most austere academic contributions to economic theory, but here she brings the reader behind the scenes and enthusiastically exposes the dogmatic nature of economic orthodoxy. She proposes that with antiquated metaphysics removed, economics can make significant advances toward becoming a science.

In EP, her focus is on the methodology of economics, and she boldly questions the development of economic thought on the concept of value -- that money is the measure of all things. Ironically, her philosophy and outspoken views may have cost her the Nobel Prize in Economics, which many expected her to win. Yet, her profound insights are drawing wider attention in our own troubled materialist world, putting the spotlight back on modern-day concerns over the economy, society, and sustainability. Climate change is just one example which demonstrates how limited the money-makes-the-mare-goargument, that mainstream economics unconcerned with values or moral principles presents itself today. Climate scientists and ecologists understand better the forces at work. However, the natural world is so complicated and evolves in such unpredictable ways, particularly in its relationship with the socio-economic system, that any attempt to put a monetary value on the future of our lovely blue planet is fraught with uncertainty.

Joan’s use of the term ideology would in the present day be interpreted to mean a political polemic. But she was referring to values in a more general sense that she goes on to expound. From the time Karl Marx taught us that “…ideas spring from ideologies, we began to ask the question: Why do I believe what I believe? This leads to another question: Why do I believe what I believe about what it is that makes me believe it? So, we remain in an impenetrable fog. Truth is no longer true. Evil is no longer wicked. It all depends on what you mean.”

A fearless critic of free-market capitalism, Joan looks behind the curtain of economics to reveal a constant battle between economics as a science and economics as ideology, which she argued was integral to economics. In her pellucid style, she challenges early economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, as well as neoclassical economists Alfred Marshall, Stanley Jevons and Leon Walrus, on the value question. What they considered to be the generators of value -- labour-time, marginal utility, or preferences, respectively -- are not scientific but ‘metaphysical,’ and that it is frequently in ideology, not science, that we find the reason for the rejection of economic theories. Joan’s prescient message rings true in today’s unpredictable and unequal world: The task before the economist is to counter the notion that the only value that matters is that which can be measured in terms of money.

We all need money to survive. But Mammon worship, that is quite another thing. The ethical question is always a conflict that can never be settled. Social life presents humankind with a choice of evils. Read Joan Robinson’s EP, she persuasively shows that there is more to life than just money and one would do well to choose values over value.