David MOUREY

Le Livre de la Semaine

« Candidats, Répondez ! » de Jacques ATTALI« Remettons-nous au travail » de Bill CLINTON

Des Livres et des Economistes

  • Thomas PIKETTY 06 04 2011 (7)
  • « Un Privilège exorbitant » de Barry EICHENGREEN
  • « Le Nouvel Esprit de la Démocratie » Loïc BLONDIAUX
  • olloque Banque de France Galerie Dorée 27 01 2011 (6)
  • Rapport 2011 de la BRI – BIS Annual Report 2011
  • Thomas PIKETTY 06 04 2011 (13)

A Lire

« La France doit choisir » de Jean-Louis BEFFA« Etat Moderne, Etat Efficace » par Marc FERRACCI et Etie

Sites et Blogs

overblog

Rechercher

Partager

W3C

  • Flux RSS des articles
Jeudi 12 mars 2009 4 12 /03 /Mars /2009 21:54
- Par David Mourey - Publié dans : Rationalité

Lu sur un blog indiqué plus bas ...

Professor Sen has an article on Capitalism beyond the Crisis in the current New York Review of Books. He has a shorter summary in the Financial Times today.

Adam Smith's market never stood alone By Amartya Sen, Published: March 10 2009

 

Blog Aid Watch, Just Asking that Aid Benefit the Poor


Amartya Sen on Moralism, Maoism, and Capitalism


I share the universal respect for Professor Sen, but must respectfully disagree on some of his take on capitalism in crisis:

He points out that even Mr. Free Market Invisible Hand, Adam Smith, was aware that you need more than self-interest to make capitalism work. You also need moral values like trust, honesty, and prudence (none of which has been too obvious in the financial sector lately), so business people can do transactions without cheating each other. His story is that free market proponents forgot all that in the run-up to the current crisis. If this is true, free market proponents are amazingly lazy, not bothering to read the zillion articles by economists on precisely these values in the last 15 years. The interesting question is where do these values come from? As this recent research shows, they COULD still arise even in a world of pure self-interest, since self-interested individuals could rationally find ways to bind themselves to norms of good behavior so that they can do repeated transactions with each other (probably helped along by pre-existing norms based on culture or human evolution -- see previous post on values). A norm of trust can sustain a free market driven by the profit motive (usually supplemented by formal institutions). And why do the values sometimes break down? Unfortunately, a norm of distrust is also another possible equilibrium, in which you expect everyone else to be untrustworthy and so you are untrustworthy too. A bunch of cheaters could catch everyone by surprise, destroy trust, and we jump to the bad equilibrium. I don't know if this has anything to do with the current crisis, but I suspect this type of analysis, as practiced by tons of recent research on values and norms, is more useful than moral sermonizing to those (probably nonexistent) economists who didn't know you need trust as well as the profit motive...

 

Blog  Aid Watch

http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/03/amartya_sen_on_moralism_maoism.html

 

Voir les autres commentaires - Laisser un commentaire - Communauté : Blogs de Pontault-Combault 77
Retour à l'accueil

Créer un blog gratuit sur over-blog.com - Contact - C.G.U. - Rémunération en droits d'auteur - Signaler un abus - Articles les plus commentés