What do you think?
Rate this book
Economics for the Common Good
From Nobel Prize-winning economist Jean Tirole, a bold new agenda for the role of economics in society
When Jean Tirole won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Economics, he suddenly found himself being stopped in the street by complete strangers and asked to comment on issues of the day, no matter how distant from his own areas of research. His transformation from academic economist to public intellectual prompted him to reflect further on the role economists and their discipline play in society. The result is Economics for the Common Good, a passionate manifesto for a world in which economics, far from being a "dismal science," is a positive force for the common good.
Economists are rewarded for writing technical papers in scholarly journals, not joining in public debates. But Tirole says we urgently need economists to engage with the many challenges facing society, helping to identify our key objectives and the tools needed to meet them.
To show how economics can help us realize the common good, Tirole shares his insights on a broad array of questions affecting our everyday lives and the future of our society, including global warming, unemployment, the post-2008 global financial order, the euro crisis, the digital revolution, innovation, and the proper balance between the free market and regulation.
Providing a rich account of how economics can benefit everyone, Economics for the Common Good sets a new agenda for the role of economics in society.
When Jean Tirole won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Economics, he suddenly found himself being stopped in the street by complete strangers and asked to comment on issues of the day, no matter how distant from his own areas of research. His transformation from academic economist to public intellectual prompted him to reflect further on the role economists and their discipline play in society. The result is Economics for the Common Good, a passionate manifesto for a world in which economics, far from being a "dismal science," is a positive force for the common good.
Economists are rewarded for writing technical papers in scholarly journals, not joining in public debates. But Tirole says we urgently need economists to engage with the many challenges facing society, helping to identify our key objectives and the tools needed to meet them.
To show how economics can help us realize the common good, Tirole shares his insights on a broad array of questions affecting our everyday lives and the future of our society, including global warming, unemployment, the post-2008 global financial order, the euro crisis, the digital revolution, innovation, and the proper balance between the free market and regulation.
Providing a rich account of how economics can benefit everyone, Economics for the Common Good sets a new agenda for the role of economics in society.
564 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 1, 2016
597 people are currently reading
4,711 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
December 15, 2017
The translators give away the game on page 429, where in the last sentence they let it slip: as per the last five words of chapter fifteen, the real title of this book ought to have been “Economics OF the common good.”
And that’s what we really have here. Rather than a book about the wide field of Economics, this is a book about what a less ambitious author would have called “the Economics of the Public Sector.”
And yet, this five hundred page opus is still far too ambitious and suffers for it quite a bit.
The author does himself and his readers zero favors in trying to cover such a vast field so completely. The result is that you get a super-wide but not at all deep survey of an exhaustive range of topics within the field of public sector economics, from externalities and public goods to free-riders, the need for free markets and regulation to co-exist, all the way to the application of these concepts to real-life issues like the future of the European Union.
And none of that is terribly strong. Don’t get me wrong, it’s “perfect” the same way the math books Serge Lang writes for Springer every summer are “perfect:” no stone is left unturned and everything is exactly right. But between the urge to say everything that there is to be said and the need to keep it all very civil, all passion is gone from the first 350 pages of this book. If what you want is a book on the Economics of the Public Sector, buy Stiglitz. Nothing’s changed since it was written.
Here’s an example of how thin the butter’s had to be spread: in an early chapter, Tirole leaves you with the impression that AIG had to be saved because not saving them would have cost poor people their insurance; in a much later chapter on a different topic he explains in some detail how the insurance business was never really under any such risk. But there was no room for that bit of information the first time AIG came up. Similarly, somewhere else he mentions that the ECB used OMT to buy peripheral government bonds, when I’m sure he knows that’s a bazooka that was never really fired and all purchases of Mediterranean dreck occurred under the auspices (and false pretenses) of quantitative easing as a way to unblock the credit channel. And so on.
Finally, the stated aim of the book, which is to make economics accessible to the common man, is resolutely not met here. The common man will stay awake longer with a copy of the Economist than with the first fourteen wordy, self-obsessed chapters of this magnum opus.
And then comes page 353, where you get to “Part V: The Industrial Challenge”
The 130 pages that follow are a strong candidate for the best 130 pages I’ve ever read. No exaggeration whatsoever! The charts and figures that are conspicuous through their absence in the first 350 pages of the book are all present and correct, the prose comes alive and you are finally riding with one of the giants in the field of Economics as he walks you through
• Competition Policy and Industrial Policy
• How Digitization is Changing Everything
• Digital Economies: The Challenges for Society
• Innovation and Intellectual Property
• Sector Regulation
This is a total masterclass. It’s hot hot hot and useful and so 2017 you want to cry. If you don’t know your BSD licenses from your GPL licenses, if you want to understand the power of two-sided platforms, if you want to know if an Uber cabbie is an employee or an entrepreneur (answer: he’s neither, wake the hell up, this is 2017), if you want to know the future of insurance or if you have no idea who pays for a service you’re using, you have TOTALLY come to the right place.
This is the hottest 130 pages of the year, but nobody will find out who reads books from the start.
I’m keeping mine in the office, for reference. It’s that good!
And that’s what we really have here. Rather than a book about the wide field of Economics, this is a book about what a less ambitious author would have called “the Economics of the Public Sector.”
And yet, this five hundred page opus is still far too ambitious and suffers for it quite a bit.
The author does himself and his readers zero favors in trying to cover such a vast field so completely. The result is that you get a super-wide but not at all deep survey of an exhaustive range of topics within the field of public sector economics, from externalities and public goods to free-riders, the need for free markets and regulation to co-exist, all the way to the application of these concepts to real-life issues like the future of the European Union.
And none of that is terribly strong. Don’t get me wrong, it’s “perfect” the same way the math books Serge Lang writes for Springer every summer are “perfect:” no stone is left unturned and everything is exactly right. But between the urge to say everything that there is to be said and the need to keep it all very civil, all passion is gone from the first 350 pages of this book. If what you want is a book on the Economics of the Public Sector, buy Stiglitz. Nothing’s changed since it was written.
Here’s an example of how thin the butter’s had to be spread: in an early chapter, Tirole leaves you with the impression that AIG had to be saved because not saving them would have cost poor people their insurance; in a much later chapter on a different topic he explains in some detail how the insurance business was never really under any such risk. But there was no room for that bit of information the first time AIG came up. Similarly, somewhere else he mentions that the ECB used OMT to buy peripheral government bonds, when I’m sure he knows that’s a bazooka that was never really fired and all purchases of Mediterranean dreck occurred under the auspices (and false pretenses) of quantitative easing as a way to unblock the credit channel. And so on.
Finally, the stated aim of the book, which is to make economics accessible to the common man, is resolutely not met here. The common man will stay awake longer with a copy of the Economist than with the first fourteen wordy, self-obsessed chapters of this magnum opus.
And then comes page 353, where you get to “Part V: The Industrial Challenge”
The 130 pages that follow are a strong candidate for the best 130 pages I’ve ever read. No exaggeration whatsoever! The charts and figures that are conspicuous through their absence in the first 350 pages of the book are all present and correct, the prose comes alive and you are finally riding with one of the giants in the field of Economics as he walks you through
• Competition Policy and Industrial Policy
• How Digitization is Changing Everything
• Digital Economies: The Challenges for Society
• Innovation and Intellectual Property
• Sector Regulation
This is a total masterclass. It’s hot hot hot and useful and so 2017 you want to cry. If you don’t know your BSD licenses from your GPL licenses, if you want to understand the power of two-sided platforms, if you want to know if an Uber cabbie is an employee or an entrepreneur (answer: he’s neither, wake the hell up, this is 2017), if you want to know the future of insurance or if you have no idea who pays for a service you’re using, you have TOTALLY come to the right place.
This is the hottest 130 pages of the year, but nobody will find out who reads books from the start.
I’m keeping mine in the office, for reference. It’s that good!
September 1, 2016
I have great discussion with my son (student in political sciences in London) when I provoke him by saying social sciences are soft sciences and medicine hard sciences. He opposed to me that economy had a subject and a method, but I respond that economist response depend of their theory : keynesian or classic. Thee is no end.It is funny.
Tirole, last economy Nobel Prize, is mathematician, it is is his alone book readable. Somewhere, it is the anti-Picketty. Pedagogic, simple, he justify all his point of view, no ideology.
Tirole, last economy Nobel Prize, is mathematician, it is is his alone book readable. Somewhere, it is the anti-Picketty. Pedagogic, simple, he justify all his point of view, no ideology.
January 18, 2019
Economics for the Common Good, by Jean Tirole, is a fascinating book on economics and its place as a discipline in modern society. Tirole starts by discussing the idea of common good, and the discipline of economics. Often in the modern world, economics, and in particular finance, are blamed for many of the worlds ills. The 2008 financial crisis, the Greek debt crisis, populism, environmental damage... etc. etc. Tirole note throughout the book that there are truths to these claims. Economics, like any discipline, is largely theoretical, and seeks to understand the principles of human behaviour in terms of interactions with, and regulation of, the market. In modern states, the market and state are often reliant on each other. The state requires the market to efficiently provide goods and services to citizens that would be too expensive to fund fully through taxation. The market requires the stability and regulatory framework offered by a stable state. Far from a hostile relationship, both spheres are deeply interconnected. This is often a criticism that is leveled at both modern political and economic institutions. And Tirole notes this. Market failures abound, and can be created both by issues with the market, issues within government policies and regulations, or a mix of the two. Human behaviour is also at fault. However, does this mean the discipline of economics is useless, or dangerous? Tirole argues certainly not. There just exists problems to solve, and these problems can be solved through economics, for the common good.
Tirole first defines the common good, and goes over the basics of some macroeconomic concepts, as well as the failures of both government regulation and market failure. He then proceeds to ruminate on the importance of economists and what there roles can be in mitigating or solving market failures in order to promote the common good. He discusses both the growth of the field of economics, as behavioural economics, industrial economics and environmental economics all become intertwined and overtake classical economics - now largely defunct. Most economists are looking at issues such as corporate social responsibility, resource management, corporate and industrial policy, business cycles and market failures, reducing externalities, trade and commerce, and environmental economics. All of these fields are becoming increasingly relevant to policy makers as they grapple with growing and pressing issues revolving around political uncertainty, environmental degradation, and so on.
Tirole then goes on to discuss institutional economics and macroeconomic challenges. These are the big issues facing modern states as they grapple with increasingly more complex financial vehicles, an unavoidable integration into the global economy, and a changing marketplace. Tirole examines market failures and business cycles, and the responsibilities both states and businesses have to society, and why these responsibilities are important to promote societal stability, and thus a continuity of a stable marketplace. Large macroeconomic challenges are then detailed. Interesting chapters follow on climate change, in terms of the difficulty in regulating the environment at the state level, the development and importance of multi-lateral treaties, the toothlessness of these treaties to date, and reform ideas for how states can grapple with issues of climate change, free rider problems, and so on. Challenges in the labour market, including job protection policies, labour market regulations, and competitiveness are examined. Tirole notes the weakness, for example, of the French economy due to complex labour regulations that protect workers, but lead to inefficient job allocation, high societal costs, poor quality jobs, and an abundance of short term/precarious contracting. Tirole examines the issues facing the European Union post-Greek crisis, and offers reform ideas to ensure greater liquidity in the European market, and greater stability in Europe's banking and monetary sectors. Problems with finance, including stock markets and shareholder led companies, as well as an examination of the 2008 financial crisis are included.
After this, Tirole examines Industrial challenges, including regulations in industrial policy, the digital economy, and sectoral regulation. Tirole examines the challenges of the future economy, including the offshoring of traditional industrial jobs from Western countries, the growth of the service and knowledge economy, issues with R&D, government policies to promote growth in specific sectors, and so on. This was a fascinating section, offering smart ruminations on the future economy grounded in real analysis, including examinations of industries as far flung as the internet, video game companies, taxis, traditional industrial sectors, and universities.
Tirole has written an extremely detailed and interesting book. Economics for the Common Good offers real solutions and analysis of current and future challenges humans will face both in the economy, and throughout their daily lives. Tirole focuses on solutions that would have a net positive impact on society, such as focusing on people as opposed to positions in the job market, or reducing the debilitating environmental impacts of industrial sectors. Tirole also gives a very adept examination of economics as a discipline, and why it is such an important school of thought both in the present and future. This is a high quality economics read, and one that is thoughtful, interesting, and challenging to the reader. Highly recommended, and certainly one to pick up if any of the above topics interest you.
Tirole first defines the common good, and goes over the basics of some macroeconomic concepts, as well as the failures of both government regulation and market failure. He then proceeds to ruminate on the importance of economists and what there roles can be in mitigating or solving market failures in order to promote the common good. He discusses both the growth of the field of economics, as behavioural economics, industrial economics and environmental economics all become intertwined and overtake classical economics - now largely defunct. Most economists are looking at issues such as corporate social responsibility, resource management, corporate and industrial policy, business cycles and market failures, reducing externalities, trade and commerce, and environmental economics. All of these fields are becoming increasingly relevant to policy makers as they grapple with growing and pressing issues revolving around political uncertainty, environmental degradation, and so on.
Tirole then goes on to discuss institutional economics and macroeconomic challenges. These are the big issues facing modern states as they grapple with increasingly more complex financial vehicles, an unavoidable integration into the global economy, and a changing marketplace. Tirole examines market failures and business cycles, and the responsibilities both states and businesses have to society, and why these responsibilities are important to promote societal stability, and thus a continuity of a stable marketplace. Large macroeconomic challenges are then detailed. Interesting chapters follow on climate change, in terms of the difficulty in regulating the environment at the state level, the development and importance of multi-lateral treaties, the toothlessness of these treaties to date, and reform ideas for how states can grapple with issues of climate change, free rider problems, and so on. Challenges in the labour market, including job protection policies, labour market regulations, and competitiveness are examined. Tirole notes the weakness, for example, of the French economy due to complex labour regulations that protect workers, but lead to inefficient job allocation, high societal costs, poor quality jobs, and an abundance of short term/precarious contracting. Tirole examines the issues facing the European Union post-Greek crisis, and offers reform ideas to ensure greater liquidity in the European market, and greater stability in Europe's banking and monetary sectors. Problems with finance, including stock markets and shareholder led companies, as well as an examination of the 2008 financial crisis are included.
After this, Tirole examines Industrial challenges, including regulations in industrial policy, the digital economy, and sectoral regulation. Tirole examines the challenges of the future economy, including the offshoring of traditional industrial jobs from Western countries, the growth of the service and knowledge economy, issues with R&D, government policies to promote growth in specific sectors, and so on. This was a fascinating section, offering smart ruminations on the future economy grounded in real analysis, including examinations of industries as far flung as the internet, video game companies, taxis, traditional industrial sectors, and universities.
Tirole has written an extremely detailed and interesting book. Economics for the Common Good offers real solutions and analysis of current and future challenges humans will face both in the economy, and throughout their daily lives. Tirole focuses on solutions that would have a net positive impact on society, such as focusing on people as opposed to positions in the job market, or reducing the debilitating environmental impacts of industrial sectors. Tirole also gives a very adept examination of economics as a discipline, and why it is such an important school of thought both in the present and future. This is a high quality economics read, and one that is thoughtful, interesting, and challenging to the reader. Highly recommended, and certainly one to pick up if any of the above topics interest you.
October 31, 2018
Well worth reading, particularly today.
This is the exact opposite of the uninformed, homogeneous, incendiary, hyper-partisan, superficial, sound-bite centered, eye-candy-like blather we're daily subjected to through our social media feeds and preferred media outlets (whether newspapers or cable news services). This is serious, critical, analytical, research-based examination of some of the most important issues facing our society today. How refreshing (and, at the same time, how depressing it is to realize how little of this we hear, discuss, and think about on a daily basis).
Some really good thought-provoking, insightful stuff crammed in here. For folks who enjoyed Robert Reich's recent essay-length, far-more-accessible, much-quicker-to-read book, The Common Good, this is a logical follow-on, just wider (far more global than American), deeper, more nuanced, and far more technical (and, at times, theoretical, but definitely academic, even though it was intended, if I'm correct, for airport bookstore - and other popular - consumption).
Frankly, I don't know how easy to digest this would be for readers who have never taken an economics course or who don't read widely in the field. Conversely, if you like rubrics or thinking about tools for isolating, analyzing, and solving problems, this is catnip with a chaser of Red Bull (or Carabao, or your favorite energy drink). Tirole attempts to introduce all of his concepts for lay readers, and tries to build from the ground up, but there's still a lot of firehose-volume information, theory, vocabulary, and data being spit out here. In other words, it's a lot, and it comes at you fast, despite Tirole's effort to serve it in bite sized chunks.
The best selling point for the book is that Tirole's various recommendations for different problems or segments are written as standalone chapters - and I (really) enjoyed Chapters 8 through 17, covering the climate challenge (8), the labor market (9), Europe/EU/Brexit (10), the role of finance (11), the 2008 financial crisis (12), competition and industrial policy (13), digitalization and the digital economy (14 & 15), innovation and intellectual property (IP) (16), and sector regulation (17). To my mind, of these, Chapters 8-10 alone justified the investment in the whole.
Pleasant surprise: American readers may be amused by, but will surely benefit - in terms of perspective - from, reading sophisticated policy analysis that, while unabashedly global, is often based on (and highly critical of) France and, to a lesser extent, the EU.
Reader's nit: Ultimately, I think Tirole tried to do too much in a single book, and I found the second half of the book far more useful than the first. In particular, Part II, which attempts to describe the economist's role in society, profession and everyday life, etc., felt like more digression and distraction than value added. But, hey, nobody's perfect, and, regardless of any criticism, I applaud him for taking on this Herculean task and producing a darn good book.
In the end, the book provides a valuable public service. In my dreams, it would be widely read. Sadly, that's not going to happen. But hope springs eternal.
This is the exact opposite of the uninformed, homogeneous, incendiary, hyper-partisan, superficial, sound-bite centered, eye-candy-like blather we're daily subjected to through our social media feeds and preferred media outlets (whether newspapers or cable news services). This is serious, critical, analytical, research-based examination of some of the most important issues facing our society today. How refreshing (and, at the same time, how depressing it is to realize how little of this we hear, discuss, and think about on a daily basis).
Some really good thought-provoking, insightful stuff crammed in here. For folks who enjoyed Robert Reich's recent essay-length, far-more-accessible, much-quicker-to-read book, The Common Good, this is a logical follow-on, just wider (far more global than American), deeper, more nuanced, and far more technical (and, at times, theoretical, but definitely academic, even though it was intended, if I'm correct, for airport bookstore - and other popular - consumption).
Frankly, I don't know how easy to digest this would be for readers who have never taken an economics course or who don't read widely in the field. Conversely, if you like rubrics or thinking about tools for isolating, analyzing, and solving problems, this is catnip with a chaser of Red Bull (or Carabao, or your favorite energy drink). Tirole attempts to introduce all of his concepts for lay readers, and tries to build from the ground up, but there's still a lot of firehose-volume information, theory, vocabulary, and data being spit out here. In other words, it's a lot, and it comes at you fast, despite Tirole's effort to serve it in bite sized chunks.
The best selling point for the book is that Tirole's various recommendations for different problems or segments are written as standalone chapters - and I (really) enjoyed Chapters 8 through 17, covering the climate challenge (8), the labor market (9), Europe/EU/Brexit (10), the role of finance (11), the 2008 financial crisis (12), competition and industrial policy (13), digitalization and the digital economy (14 & 15), innovation and intellectual property (IP) (16), and sector regulation (17). To my mind, of these, Chapters 8-10 alone justified the investment in the whole.
Pleasant surprise: American readers may be amused by, but will surely benefit - in terms of perspective - from, reading sophisticated policy analysis that, while unabashedly global, is often based on (and highly critical of) France and, to a lesser extent, the EU.
Reader's nit: Ultimately, I think Tirole tried to do too much in a single book, and I found the second half of the book far more useful than the first. In particular, Part II, which attempts to describe the economist's role in society, profession and everyday life, etc., felt like more digression and distraction than value added. But, hey, nobody's perfect, and, regardless of any criticism, I applaud him for taking on this Herculean task and producing a darn good book.
In the end, the book provides a valuable public service. In my dreams, it would be widely read. Sadly, that's not going to happen. But hope springs eternal.
August 16, 2020
We confirm our believes in news and media: economics works the same. We apply our decisions in line with those believes. A problem is that we are bias through that approach. Markets are regulated and it’s limited. An example is when you buy or sell goods for babies. This third party cannot decide in this market because it has no opinion. Therefore game theory is an example. Two essential questions are: What’s the best decision for the individual and the group? - another example is information theory where the farmer example underpins it good. A rule is that neither the state nor the market is perfect. A thing to think about is climate change and freely chosen KPIs fail to apply. Sanctions might be a good example or a maximum amount of used resources such as CO2 which can be traded. The book circulates than around financial speculations which can be useful but are also dangerous. Finance is a marked for borrowers. Even Facebook and Co. are markets because you have a regulation of prices such as Apple is doing.
The book explains everything clear and easy. The tone is calm and explained in a way you can understand and learn from it.
The book explains everything clear and easy. The tone is calm and explained in a way you can understand and learn from it.
January 14, 2025
Esse é um livro para leigos. Para o economista profissional talvez não agregue muito, mas para o leitor comum é uma obra que traz muita coisa interessante. No entanto, mesmo para essa categoria — na qual eu me incluo — talvez não seja algo a se ler de cabo a rabo.
Os capítulos têm uma razoável autonomia entre si. Há uma gama de temas que são tratados. Alguns realmente me interessam pouco, caso de problemas particulares da União Europeia. Deixei-os de lado. A melhor saída, pelo menos foi o que fiz, é escolher as partes que sejam de maior interesse ao leitor.
Para mim, foram os capítulos iniciais — 1 a 6 — os que me interessaram mais. Tratam da economia enquanto atividade intelectual, ou seja, de como os economistas pensam. Trazem, ainda, o próprio arcabouço mental do autor.
Ele tem uma visão otimista da sua própria profissão. Talvez o título do livro deveria ter sido ‘economia PARA o bem comum’ no sentido que, para ele, a economia busca resolver problemas e oferecer respostas para melhorar a vida das pessoas. Ok, isso é meio vago e pode significar muitas coisas, mas acho que ele fica no meio do caminho entre os mercadistas radicais e os estatais desvairados. Em certo momento ele até mesmo diz que não é viável uma sociedade em que ambos não coexistam ou em que um domine o outro, o que me parece bastante razoável. Há as falhas de mercado, mas há, também, as falhas do Estado.
Além disso, ele parece bastante alinhado com aquilo que se chama hoje de economia comportamental, o que implica dizer que ele dá bastante atenção aos resultados experimentais.
Enfim, um livro que vale a pena e merece ser lido – mesmo que se faça uma seleção do que se vai ler.
Dois trechos selecionados:
“Veremos ao longo de todo este livro como a hybris – no caso, uma confiança excessiva do Estado em sua capacidade de fazer escolhas detalhadas de política econômica – pode, em conjunção com a vontade de manter um controle, e, logo, o poder de distribuir favores, levá-lo a implementar políticas ambientais e trabalhistas nefastas”. (34)
“Um dos leitmotivs aqui é que as políticas públicas devem ser guiadas pela exigência de realização dos objetivos, e não por posturas ou sinalizações demagógicas, que às vezes vão de encontro aos efeitos pretendidos ou dilapidam o dinheiro público” (46)
Os capítulos têm uma razoável autonomia entre si. Há uma gama de temas que são tratados. Alguns realmente me interessam pouco, caso de problemas particulares da União Europeia. Deixei-os de lado. A melhor saída, pelo menos foi o que fiz, é escolher as partes que sejam de maior interesse ao leitor.
Para mim, foram os capítulos iniciais — 1 a 6 — os que me interessaram mais. Tratam da economia enquanto atividade intelectual, ou seja, de como os economistas pensam. Trazem, ainda, o próprio arcabouço mental do autor.
Ele tem uma visão otimista da sua própria profissão. Talvez o título do livro deveria ter sido ‘economia PARA o bem comum’ no sentido que, para ele, a economia busca resolver problemas e oferecer respostas para melhorar a vida das pessoas. Ok, isso é meio vago e pode significar muitas coisas, mas acho que ele fica no meio do caminho entre os mercadistas radicais e os estatais desvairados. Em certo momento ele até mesmo diz que não é viável uma sociedade em que ambos não coexistam ou em que um domine o outro, o que me parece bastante razoável. Há as falhas de mercado, mas há, também, as falhas do Estado.
Além disso, ele parece bastante alinhado com aquilo que se chama hoje de economia comportamental, o que implica dizer que ele dá bastante atenção aos resultados experimentais.
Enfim, um livro que vale a pena e merece ser lido – mesmo que se faça uma seleção do que se vai ler.
Dois trechos selecionados:
“Veremos ao longo de todo este livro como a hybris – no caso, uma confiança excessiva do Estado em sua capacidade de fazer escolhas detalhadas de política econômica – pode, em conjunção com a vontade de manter um controle, e, logo, o poder de distribuir favores, levá-lo a implementar políticas ambientais e trabalhistas nefastas”. (34)
“Um dos leitmotivs aqui é que as políticas públicas devem ser guiadas pela exigência de realização dos objetivos, e não por posturas ou sinalizações demagógicas, que às vezes vão de encontro aos efeitos pretendidos ou dilapidam o dinheiro público” (46)
June 3, 2018
Princeton used a really dense stock for the paper, so this is a dense book in terms of it's physicality. But in terms of ideas, not so much. Tirole tries to be accessible in sketching out his vision for economists and economics aimed for the interested amateur. He is at his best in the first couple hundred pages, where he is looking specifically at ideas like what is economics and what does the economist do?. The last three hundred pages he engages with a dozen or so macro and micro challenges using the framework he sets up in the first part of the book. These are weaker only in that there is not enough space to really give the subject much depth. So 30 pages on "Labor Market Challenges" across countries could take up a whole book, not just one section. But that could just be me, and I'm not the specific audience they were shooting for. Overall, an interesting book - one that might be pared down for more lasting impact in subsequent editions.
June 12, 2019
Meh... this was a bit too scattered and didn't delve deep into much of Tirole's research (granted, he is one of the most prolific economics researchers of the past 40 years, so it would take several books to go deep into his own research). The book covers topics that he has not written about professionally, as well. For the most part, he describes problems facing the economy and the economics profession today, and he usually ends discussing what we might want to consider when thinking about those issues. His best chapter is on sectoral regulation (particularly about natural monopolies and considering the upstream and downstream market structure when those monopolies are networks), but it was not very new nor did it go in depth. Most of the book is just standard narrative, milquetoast economics (to be fair, more of that is probably what is needed in public discourse these days). I would say his main fault is that he is too confident in technocrats ability to manipulate the economy.
This would have been more interesting had Tirole written from a case study approach (similar to Al Roth's book). I think the issue is that Tirole is a theorist (a prolific one at that), and when you come up with so many models (which may or (more likely) may not describe any particular situation in reality), it is hard to write a compelling narrative about how you think about the world.
Your mileage will certainly vary with this one.
This would have been more interesting had Tirole written from a case study approach (similar to Al Roth's book). I think the issue is that Tirole is a theorist (a prolific one at that), and when you come up with so many models (which may or (more likely) may not describe any particular situation in reality), it is hard to write a compelling narrative about how you think about the world.
Your mileage will certainly vary with this one.
February 22, 2018
Excellent, must read book. The author makes a difficult subject more assessible. We now live in a global community where we have a choice for the common good. We can end so much needless suffering by taking the greater good into account when we make our decisions. Let's hope we see the world move in this direction.
February 25, 2018
Few people outside the economics profession have an idea of the almost God-like status Jean Tirole has amongst his peers. Arguably, the key reason for this relative obscurity is that, while Jean Tirole is an extremely prolific author, his intellectual activity has, until recently, been entirely focused on writing extremely technical papers and books with an specialized audience in mind. With the possible exception of Kenneth Arrow, Tirole has written a record number of path breaking papers in almost all areas of economics - I have been joking for at least two decades that he writes more in one year than I can understand in a lifetime. Given the originality, the depth and the scope of his purely scientific work, I have been amazed to learn that he has even found the time for any policy advisory work at all.
With "The economics of the common good", Jean Tirole has for the first time written a book with a general audience in mind. As can be expected from Prof Tirole, the book is voluminous (630 pages in the original French version) and covers a lot of ground.
Essentially, the book is a reflection on the role of the economist (and economics as a scientific discipline) in society, and aims at informing the general public of the role economics can play in societal debates. It is a frustration shared by a lot of economists (including myself) that there exist a lot of misconceptions regarding the objectives and methods of economic analysis, especially amongst other social sciences and amongst the humanities.
In the first part of the book, Tirole therefore addresses the intellectual and moral foundations of economic analysis, and specifically the criticism that economics is a-moral or even immoral.
The second part of the book is dedicated to the profession of the economist, and to the role he has to play in societal debates and to the realities of the live as a researcher in economics.
In the third part, the book moves to a (still generic) discussion on what economics has to say about the respective roles of government and private enterprise.
The fourth part is split in chapters that are each dedicated to a great societal challenge of our era: climate change, unemployment, the future of the European Union, the role of finance in society and the financial crisis of 2008.
The fifth part is dedicated to the field to which Jean Tirole has contributed most himself: the economic analysis of markets in imperfect competition (for some reason, economists refer to this field as "industrial economics", which shows that, even within the denomination of fields, there is path dependency). The topics he covers include: the regulation of network industries, the economics analysis of multisided platforms, the impact of big data on insurance markets and social security, the gig economy, intellectual property rights...
If you think this is a lot of material to cover, I agree. Actually, the author himself emphasizes that most chapters can be read independently, depending on the reader's interests. I would also recommend the reader not to read the book in one go. It has taken me more or less three months to read the book, but this is because I would read 1 or 2 chapters during a weekend, and then allow the contents to sink in.
And there really is a lot of content to sink in. Tirole is a typical example of a "on the one hand this, on the other hand this" economist. Practically, this means that each problem addressed in the book is desiccated with the ultra sharp scalpel of Tirole's intellect. Tirole's analysis defies any ideological classification. Whether your inclinations are left- or right wing, you will find a lot of material to dislike in the book. This is especially case in what is probably the most politically sensitive chapter of the book, the one addressing mass unemployment. Tirole's analysis is probably not very surprising for anyone with a serious training in economics, but I am still sure a lot of people will find it offensive, whatever their political preference. And the proposed solutions also go against almost anything that is debated in political circles. This chapter, in itself, is the best possible illustration of the contributions economic analysis can make to a constructive and non-ideological discussion of societal problems. (Did you expect me to tell you what the proposed solution is? Of course, I won't - that's an extra incentive to go and read the book yourself).
This being said, those who expect clear cut cookbook recommendations will be hugely disappointed. The towering intellect of Tirole is only matched by his modesty and his willingness to accept that he doesn't have answers to everything. Actually, it is striking how often he writes "I simply don't know" - a sentence I would be very happy to hear more often (of course, we know from Bertrand Russell that it is motsly the stupid who are cocksure). In part, addressing this ignorance is a new research agenda. As Tirole writes at concluding remark at the end of one of the chapters: "with the current level of data availability, anyone can believe whatever he wants" - that sounds like a call to arms for better data collection.
In summary, anyone who is interested in a state-of-the-art of the economic analysis of several key policy issues, will find this book to be a treasure of thoughtful analysis. I am likely to consult it as a reference for several years to come.
Does this mean that the book succeeds in its stated objective of conveying Tirole's love of his field to a broad audience? I am not sure. I have a PhD in economics myself, and often found the reading arduous. The point is that Jean Tirole is not a natural-born popularizer of his field, contrary to other Nobel Prize winners such as Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman of Joe Stiglitz. One can of course argue that, when writing for a general audience, these authors are as much evangelists for a cause as scientists and that Tirole's consistent cold-headed approach is at odds with evangelism of any sort. Maybe. But if you look at some of Krugman's early popular writing (such as "Peddling prosperity"), long before he was at the centre of partisan controversies, you'll see that he is perfectly capable of explaining technical issues such as a "liquidity trap" in a way that is much more engaging than what Tirole offers. In this sense, I expect that Tirole's main audience will be other economists who are interested in a non-technical treatise by one of the really great economic thinkers of our time. But I don't expect it will be widely read outside this circle. Which is a pity.
With "The economics of the common good", Jean Tirole has for the first time written a book with a general audience in mind. As can be expected from Prof Tirole, the book is voluminous (630 pages in the original French version) and covers a lot of ground.
Essentially, the book is a reflection on the role of the economist (and economics as a scientific discipline) in society, and aims at informing the general public of the role economics can play in societal debates. It is a frustration shared by a lot of economists (including myself) that there exist a lot of misconceptions regarding the objectives and methods of economic analysis, especially amongst other social sciences and amongst the humanities.
In the first part of the book, Tirole therefore addresses the intellectual and moral foundations of economic analysis, and specifically the criticism that economics is a-moral or even immoral.
The second part of the book is dedicated to the profession of the economist, and to the role he has to play in societal debates and to the realities of the live as a researcher in economics.
In the third part, the book moves to a (still generic) discussion on what economics has to say about the respective roles of government and private enterprise.
The fourth part is split in chapters that are each dedicated to a great societal challenge of our era: climate change, unemployment, the future of the European Union, the role of finance in society and the financial crisis of 2008.
The fifth part is dedicated to the field to which Jean Tirole has contributed most himself: the economic analysis of markets in imperfect competition (for some reason, economists refer to this field as "industrial economics", which shows that, even within the denomination of fields, there is path dependency). The topics he covers include: the regulation of network industries, the economics analysis of multisided platforms, the impact of big data on insurance markets and social security, the gig economy, intellectual property rights...
If you think this is a lot of material to cover, I agree. Actually, the author himself emphasizes that most chapters can be read independently, depending on the reader's interests. I would also recommend the reader not to read the book in one go. It has taken me more or less three months to read the book, but this is because I would read 1 or 2 chapters during a weekend, and then allow the contents to sink in.
And there really is a lot of content to sink in. Tirole is a typical example of a "on the one hand this, on the other hand this" economist. Practically, this means that each problem addressed in the book is desiccated with the ultra sharp scalpel of Tirole's intellect. Tirole's analysis defies any ideological classification. Whether your inclinations are left- or right wing, you will find a lot of material to dislike in the book. This is especially case in what is probably the most politically sensitive chapter of the book, the one addressing mass unemployment. Tirole's analysis is probably not very surprising for anyone with a serious training in economics, but I am still sure a lot of people will find it offensive, whatever their political preference. And the proposed solutions also go against almost anything that is debated in political circles. This chapter, in itself, is the best possible illustration of the contributions economic analysis can make to a constructive and non-ideological discussion of societal problems. (Did you expect me to tell you what the proposed solution is? Of course, I won't - that's an extra incentive to go and read the book yourself).
This being said, those who expect clear cut cookbook recommendations will be hugely disappointed. The towering intellect of Tirole is only matched by his modesty and his willingness to accept that he doesn't have answers to everything. Actually, it is striking how often he writes "I simply don't know" - a sentence I would be very happy to hear more often (of course, we know from Bertrand Russell that it is motsly the stupid who are cocksure). In part, addressing this ignorance is a new research agenda. As Tirole writes at concluding remark at the end of one of the chapters: "with the current level of data availability, anyone can believe whatever he wants" - that sounds like a call to arms for better data collection.
In summary, anyone who is interested in a state-of-the-art of the economic analysis of several key policy issues, will find this book to be a treasure of thoughtful analysis. I am likely to consult it as a reference for several years to come.
Does this mean that the book succeeds in its stated objective of conveying Tirole's love of his field to a broad audience? I am not sure. I have a PhD in economics myself, and often found the reading arduous. The point is that Jean Tirole is not a natural-born popularizer of his field, contrary to other Nobel Prize winners such as Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman of Joe Stiglitz. One can of course argue that, when writing for a general audience, these authors are as much evangelists for a cause as scientists and that Tirole's consistent cold-headed approach is at odds with evangelism of any sort. Maybe. But if you look at some of Krugman's early popular writing (such as "Peddling prosperity"), long before he was at the centre of partisan controversies, you'll see that he is perfectly capable of explaining technical issues such as a "liquidity trap" in a way that is much more engaging than what Tirole offers. In this sense, I expect that Tirole's main audience will be other economists who are interested in a non-technical treatise by one of the really great economic thinkers of our time. But I don't expect it will be widely read outside this circle. Which is a pity.
March 8, 2021
My wife went to a French middle and high school, and then to an American undergraduate institution. She was always at the top of her class in writing in her secondary school, but she received middling marks on her essays in her first college years. She told me that a well-written French essay was the inverse of what Americans expect. Americans want to be told where the essay will go straight away. The body of the essay fills in the details, and then the end summarizes the important points. A well-written French essay loosely explores various aspects of a topic, with surprising twists and unexpected insights along the way. Only at the end of the essay can the reader reflect on its structure and purpose.
I can’t help being an American. Jean Tirole’s Economics for the Common Good was written in French, and translated into English. Despite an introduction which ostensibly described what the book would do, I didn’t really understand what the book was up to until I finished it. If I would have understood what the book was at the beginning, I probably would never have started it.
Economics for the Common Good is meant to explain to the layman some basic economics, how academic economists and their research are evaluated, and how academic economists currently understand a number of important social issues such as climate change and how to regulate internet media companies. Tirole writes in the introduction that chapters can be read independently. I didn’t realize until I was part way through the book how seriously he meant it. There is no real thread that runs through the book. It is more like a textbook, with each chapter a self-contained discussion of a particular set of issues. For the reader who goes through the entire book, this unfortunately leads to some repetitiveness.
I enjoyed Chapter Two, which is partly a response to Michael Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy. Sandel argues that putting some types of good on the market corrupts them. For example, the friendship of someone paid to be your friend is less valuable than a friend found naturally – even if the two act in the same fashion. There are some things, therefore, that we should keep away from market forces.
Tirole argues that it is better to be open about tradeoffs which make us squeamish like, say, convenience and statistical lives. We often make these decisions anyway. Driving a car to run an errand is more likely to kill someone than walking, and yet people often drive. It is deceiving ourselves to think that we will make better decisions by pretending that life is priceless. Markets simply make these tradeoffs explicit.
I also enjoyed Tirole’s throaty defence of independent bodies of experts to keep the government in check in Chapter 6, although I strongly disagree with his conclusions. I found his discussion of corporate social responsibility in Chapter 7 enlightening, especially his observation:
I recommend that you approach this book as you would a buffet at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. Choose only what looks appealing to you, and you will enjoy it more.
I can’t help being an American. Jean Tirole’s Economics for the Common Good was written in French, and translated into English. Despite an introduction which ostensibly described what the book would do, I didn’t really understand what the book was up to until I finished it. If I would have understood what the book was at the beginning, I probably would never have started it.
Economics for the Common Good is meant to explain to the layman some basic economics, how academic economists and their research are evaluated, and how academic economists currently understand a number of important social issues such as climate change and how to regulate internet media companies. Tirole writes in the introduction that chapters can be read independently. I didn’t realize until I was part way through the book how seriously he meant it. There is no real thread that runs through the book. It is more like a textbook, with each chapter a self-contained discussion of a particular set of issues. For the reader who goes through the entire book, this unfortunately leads to some repetitiveness.
I enjoyed Chapter Two, which is partly a response to Michael Sandel’s book What Money Can’t Buy. Sandel argues that putting some types of good on the market corrupts them. For example, the friendship of someone paid to be your friend is less valuable than a friend found naturally – even if the two act in the same fashion. There are some things, therefore, that we should keep away from market forces.
Tirole argues that it is better to be open about tradeoffs which make us squeamish like, say, convenience and statistical lives. We often make these decisions anyway. Driving a car to run an errand is more likely to kill someone than walking, and yet people often drive. It is deceiving ourselves to think that we will make better decisions by pretending that life is priceless. Markets simply make these tradeoffs explicit.
I also enjoyed Tirole’s throaty defence of independent bodies of experts to keep the government in check in Chapter 6, although I strongly disagree with his conclusions. I found his discussion of corporate social responsibility in Chapter 7 enlightening, especially his observation:
Can a multinational corporation compensate for the damage it does to the local environment by financing a school, a clinic, or a garbage disposal facility in the community? This debate is particularly striking today when many multinationals are undertaking socially responsible actions while simultaneously pursuing a policy of aggressive tax avoidance.
I recommend that you approach this book as you would a buffet at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. Choose only what looks appealing to you, and you will enjoy it more.
August 11, 2022
โคตรดีและละเอียดมาก
December 18, 2017
The author is a Nobel prize-winner in economics and has developed what is described as a ‘bold new agenda for the role of economics in society’. It may appear to many to be a dry, focussed read but it is capable of being transformative and valuable, propelling the science of economics to a visible, proactive force for good.
The author seeks to engage with the challenges that society is facing, utilising the power of economics to identify and action challenges. The objective is a ‘call-to-arms’, a manifesto for future change – as delivered through the book. It made for an interesting read, considering broader issues such as digital change, innovation, economic systems and financial order. It is a book for thinking about, rather than a guide to economics per se, yet it is very giving and accessible.
Nothing is unchallenged. Do we really have the best economic system and the best implementation for its operation? Could more be done? Is political control and will sufficient? Do we place our trust in an economic system that perhaps cannot be wholly trusted? All this and more come out in this massive book. It is something you really need to read in a quiet place, taking time to enjoy a sequential read and consider the messages being proffered. Of course, you can short-circuit the book, but do that at your own risk and fear of losing out!
Naturally, the author’s own personal views are featured heavily and no apology is made for this. The author is clear that there are no pre-determined answers and desires that the reader uses the book as a tool for questioning and thought generation. It is not a given that you will agree with everything and that can be good too. Diversity in opinion and thought is to be encouraged as that can make for stronger decision-making and adherence on a meta-level.
This can be a utopia for economics and politics nerds. Curious generalists can enjoy it too. It is deceptively clear and engaging for what you are getting and manages to service both audiences well. The chapters are quite short and broken down into sections and this aids the digestive process. The price may place it out of reach of some casual readers, but it is not an unreasonable price when its contents are considered.
The author seeks to engage with the challenges that society is facing, utilising the power of economics to identify and action challenges. The objective is a ‘call-to-arms’, a manifesto for future change – as delivered through the book. It made for an interesting read, considering broader issues such as digital change, innovation, economic systems and financial order. It is a book for thinking about, rather than a guide to economics per se, yet it is very giving and accessible.
Nothing is unchallenged. Do we really have the best economic system and the best implementation for its operation? Could more be done? Is political control and will sufficient? Do we place our trust in an economic system that perhaps cannot be wholly trusted? All this and more come out in this massive book. It is something you really need to read in a quiet place, taking time to enjoy a sequential read and consider the messages being proffered. Of course, you can short-circuit the book, but do that at your own risk and fear of losing out!
Naturally, the author’s own personal views are featured heavily and no apology is made for this. The author is clear that there are no pre-determined answers and desires that the reader uses the book as a tool for questioning and thought generation. It is not a given that you will agree with everything and that can be good too. Diversity in opinion and thought is to be encouraged as that can make for stronger decision-making and adherence on a meta-level.
This can be a utopia for economics and politics nerds. Curious generalists can enjoy it too. It is deceptively clear and engaging for what you are getting and manages to service both audiences well. The chapters are quite short and broken down into sections and this aids the digestive process. The price may place it out of reach of some casual readers, but it is not an unreasonable price when its contents are considered.
March 17, 2018
A book written by a Nobelist in Economy on the economic problem of providing Public Good.
Tirole discusses many branches of the economy like a) protecting the environment, b) finances and especially regulating of financial institutions like banks, c) innovation and especially ownership of intellectual property, d) competition, e) natural monopolies and regulation of those monopolies, f) digitalization, competition in case of digital/platform economy and regulation of platform economy. g) Labor market Etc.
The goal of the book is to increase the level of understanding of the reader - whether a voter or a politician - on economy to increase the quality of political decisions independent on the ideology.
I admire Tirole he took the time to write this book. Not an easy read. Some parts of the book like the discussion of finances are very heavy for a non-expert, some parts especially the parts on digitalization and labor market are highly interesting and relevant at least for me.
Each and everyone is able to increase his understanding on economy. Whether this book is best choice for deepening your understanding depends on whether you already have some experience on the science of Economy or not.
Tirole discusses many branches of the economy like a) protecting the environment, b) finances and especially regulating of financial institutions like banks, c) innovation and especially ownership of intellectual property, d) competition, e) natural monopolies and regulation of those monopolies, f) digitalization, competition in case of digital/platform economy and regulation of platform economy. g) Labor market Etc.
The goal of the book is to increase the level of understanding of the reader - whether a voter or a politician - on economy to increase the quality of political decisions independent on the ideology.
I admire Tirole he took the time to write this book. Not an easy read. Some parts of the book like the discussion of finances are very heavy for a non-expert, some parts especially the parts on digitalization and labor market are highly interesting and relevant at least for me.
Each and everyone is able to increase his understanding on economy. Whether this book is best choice for deepening your understanding depends on whether you already have some experience on the science of Economy or not.
June 9, 2018
J'ai arrêté l'économie du bien commun après 230 pages. En simplifiant je vois deux types de lecteur : le lecteur expert et le lecteur novice. Pour un expert, on n'apprend pas grand chose avec ce bouquin. Ce sont les théories classiques de l'économie mainstream qui sont énoncées de manière plus pédagogiques que les précédents bouquins de Tirole (qui n'étaient pas grand public). Pour le novice, je ne recommande vraiment pas. Il s'agit d'un point de vue très particulier et très parcellaire sur des questions qui a mon avis sont beaucoup trop complexes pour être traitées avec une théorie unificatrice (celle des incitations) dans un seul bouquin. On gagnerait beaucoup plus à mon avis à acheter pour chaque question posée un "que sais-je" qui synthétise la littérature (pas uniquement économique et pas uniquement mainstream) sur le sujet.
May 21, 2018
Este libro tiene muchas ideas económicas importantes para entender nuestro mundo y visualizar el futuro. El autor las presenta de forma relativamente simple y estructuradas en diferentes temas de interés. Se presentan reflexiones importantes sobre el mercado y el papel del Estado, o, por ejemplo, la similitud en las estrategias para ser eficientes en revertir el cambio climático y tener un mejor sistema financiero. También me gusta el análisis que hace sobre las políticas en Francia de defender "el empleo" en lugar de proteger a los trabajadores y la nueva era digital y las plataformas "dos caras" más los retos que representan.
Read
January 30, 2018This is one of the few books I'm aware of that comes anywhere close to communicating the state-of-the-art to non-economists - and the endnotes are a valuable resource even for more advanced readers.
A casual reader might find parts a bit dry or disjointed, but as anyone who has tried to teach a introductory micro course can attest, being simultaneously non-technical and non-wrong is nothing to sneeze at. We all have something to learn from Jean Tirole.
A casual reader might find parts a bit dry or disjointed, but as anyone who has tried to teach a introductory micro course can attest, being simultaneously non-technical and non-wrong is nothing to sneeze at. We all have something to learn from Jean Tirole.
January 17, 2020
Aunque tiene un clarísimo sesgo keynesiano, Tirole hace una muy legible introducción a la economía y a la actividad del economista. Su introducción al gobierno corporativo, su análisis sobre la relación entre el académico y los medios de comunicación, y su crítica al intelectual comprometido son imperdibles.
November 8, 2023
Digitization represents a marvelous opportunity for our society, but it introduces new dangers and amplifies others. Trust, ownership of data, solidarity, the diffusion of technological progress, employment, taxation: these are all challenges for the economics of the common good.
© Jean Tirole
© Jean Tirole
July 20, 2024
This review is based on the Blinkist version of the book...thus a summary and my review needs to be qualified as such. Presumably the original full text has much more details and research.....but it also takes much longer to read. If I like the Blinkist version, I might seek out and read the full book. Meantime here are a few nuggets that particularly struck me:
Our understanding of how the economy works is shaped by confirmation biases...The way we see the world is shaped by our beliefs. We emphasize facts that confirm ideas we already hold, which is why we read newspapers that echo our own political views and seek out like-minded friends.....Economics is no different; our pre-existing beliefs mould our attitudes toward the facts......This means we often don’t make the wisest economic decisions.
Imagine an environmental NGO that campaigns against poaching. It’s just managed to intercept a consignment of ivory tusks being shipped by a group of poachers who kill endangered elephants. What should it do with the confiscated ivory? Moral intuition tells us that the trade in illegal ivory is reprehensible, which means we should destroy it, right? No! Economic reasoning suggests that the best option would be to do what the poachers were attempting to and sell the ivory. [use the money to pay for preservation policing and selling helps depress prices for ivory]......taking a long-term perspective of the kind offered by economics changes the moral calculus involved in all sorts of decisions.
Markets aren’t the infallible mechanisms they’re sometimes perceived to be. Not every good can be bought and sold freely, and some things, like ivory, need to be more strictly regulated than others.....Imagine, for example, a market in which babies could be traded for cash by parents (the sellers) and adopters (the buyers). It’s easy enough to envisage both parties reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. But here the economist will raise an objection. This exchange, she says, fails because it neglects the interests of a third party, namely the baby. This kind of market failure is the result of what economists call an externality–the cost of an exchange borne by a third party who can’t consent to the exchange.....And that’s where regulation comes in. It’s an attempt to safeguard the interests of all parties
Economists try to make the world a better place by providing insights for policymakers.
Take climate change, for example. Scientists tell us that the best way to prevent catastrophic global warming is to stay within our allocated annual “carbon budget” and cut the amount of greenhouse gases we emit each year......They rely on models to analyze actors’ behavior. Two theories are particularly suited to this purpose.....The first is game theory.....A famous example is the “prisoner’s dilemma,”.......Game theory asks two questions about this kind of situation: First, what’s the best decision for the individual? And second, what’s the best decision for multiple parties collectively?
Another helpful tool is information theory, which centers on the way individuals make use of private information......Analyzing private information lets economists make informed predictions about individual behaviour.
Economic theory begins with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, it says, there was the homo economicus. This fabled character from economics 101 textbooks is the self-interested and rationally calculating decision maker. But as anyone who’s ever felt the lure of unhealthy junk food knows all too well, humans just aren’t perfectly rational creatures.....Take psychology’s homo psychologicus. He’s far from rational, and psychologists are largely interested in exploring the hidden drives that lead him to make decisions that sacrifice his long-term interests for short-term pleasures......Sociology adds another character to our expanding cast–homo socialis.
Because we don’t always have access to all the information we need to make informed decisions, we often buy things because we trust the seller or a recommendation from someone else.......It’s [also] useful to get a handle on another character, homo juridicus, since behaviour is shaped both by legal and social norms.....Take markets. Without them, there’d be little competition or innovation. Yet without the state and the rule of law, markets would descend into anarchy...But it’s not just markets that occasionally fail–states can too.
A more dangerous practice is pandering to special interest groups. That’s especially true in the case of spending commitments, because their true cost can be difficult to calculate.
Businesses face a similar quandary when it comes to decision making. Who gets to make the decisions and why? Every business has multiple stakeholders–groups affected by how a business operates. Balancing the interests of different stakeholders can be a tricky matter. Failure to take action on climate change is an example of what economists call the tragedy of the commons, which essentially refers to a conflict of interest between individuals and the common good....Imagine what would happen if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced globally. Everyone would benefit, right? The problem is that this could only be brought about by individual countries implementing the right policies......each country represents only a small fraction of the total population of the earth.....So there’s a strong incentive to free ride. The tragedy of the commons is the result of widespread free riding.
Economists have come up with two policy proposals that they think might be able to cut through this Gordian knot. The first is a global carbon tax. Polluters would be charged a fixed price per ton of emitted carbon dioxide......The second option proposed by economists is a system of tradable emission permits.
Unemployment in countries like Greece, Spain and France is sky-high when compared to the countries of northern Europe, the United States and Canada.....It’s especially bad for two distinct age groups: young people aged between 15 and 24 at the start of their careers, and older people between 55 and 65 at the end of their careers.....The introduction of the euro as a common currency in 1999 was designed to increase European integration and hasten economic development, but it has come at a high cost. Since 1999, many countries in southern Europe have seen salaries rise faster than productivity. That has made their economies much less competitive than they need to be in today’s global economy.
So what is finance?.....Basically, it’s a service for borrowers. Consider a mortgage; the bank provides borrowers with credit to acquire something they couldn’t otherwise. The finance sector also provides insurance against risk. Without that safety net, borrowers could easily end up in trouble. But as the financial crisis demonstrated, financial speculation can also destabilize the economy. This happens when otherwise useful financial products turn toxic, and a major cause of that is securitization, the financial practice of pooling different kinds of debt and selling it to a third party.If a bank knows it can always flip a mortgage, and get someone else to bear the risks, it’s likely that it’ll become less scrupulous in deciding who’s eligible for a loan......That’s precisely what happened in 2008....the state is the at the heart of economic life in every market economy, because it plays three distinctive and important roles within the market. The first role is one of public procurement.....But the state isn’t only part of the market–it’s also above the market. As a legislative and executive power, it sets the parameters of the market economy by issuing permits and licenses for things like taxi firms, supermarkets and even airline landing rights. In that role, the state is also a referee of markets.....But open competition in free markets provides several goods that the state on its own can’t. Take affordability. Monopolies mean profits because buyers have nowhere else to go...but that also brings competition and lower prices. [This hasn’t been the universal experience of monopolies].
What the platforms of the new digital economy all have in common is that they’re examples of two-sided markets, markets in which buyers and sellers interact via an intermediary. Two-sided markets like Amazon make this a lot easier. By providing a digital marketplace, they bring buyers and sellers together wherever they are. But unlike traditional marketplaces, these platforms also act as regulators to ensure that transactions are fair and smooth. In some cases, they even regulate prices–think of Apple’s iTunes, which limits the charge for downloads to $0.99 per song.....Digital platforms only work when we trust them not to misuse our personal data......But even large companies have been subject to massive credit card theft in recent years. Forty million customers of Target had their details hacked in 2013.
Add to the mix the often dubious terms of use that many websites make users sign and there’s plenty of cause for concern.
One solution is legislation that protects users against one-sided clauses. We don’t need to look far to see what that might look like in practice, since we already have laws of this kind in the offline world.
Innovation is the motor that keeps the economy humming and the wheels of economic growth spinning. But safeguarding innovation requires intellectual property rights....If every innovation were publically available for all to make use of, there would be little incentive for anyone to devote resources to the research and development that underpins all innovation.
By guaranteeing that they’ll profit from their work, tomorrow’s innovators are given an incentive to continue their often difficult and time-consuming work today....That’s where intellectual property rights come in.....But this isn’t the only way of boosting innovation; various governments have experimented with alternative models.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for example, both Britain and France granted prizes to innovators in public competitions.....While this was a great incentive for innovators to compete amongst themselves, there was also a downside. Innovation is usually unpredictable–no one knows what tomorrow’s technology will look like.
Companies have also experimented with novel approaches. One idea is patent pools, an agreement among competing firms in the same industry to jointly control patents that they can all use. That is known as coopetition, a portmanteau of the words “cooperation” and “competition,” and has been used to try to lower the price of innovations.
The key message in this book: The science of economics is, like the world it attempts to describe, complex. There are rarely clear-cut rules that can be applied to all situations; instead, there are trade-offs between different and equally valuable goods. Failure is often a result of not striking the right balance, whether it’s in the sphere of the state or markets. Getting it right requires an understanding of economics, a discipline that can help us achieve the common good when it comes to the most urgent issues of the day, like climate change and the transition to a digital economy.
I’d held great hope for this book. The common good was a concept that I’d heard of but didn’t know much about (apart from controversy over the fencing/enclosure of common land in England). But I think Jean Tirole goes well off subject. Yes there is some interesting stuff there, li,e the game wardens selling the ivory seized from Poachers....or the market for babies that failed because the baby’s interest could not be taken into account. But overall, I thought it a fairly superficial account of the common good. Three stars from me.
Our understanding of how the economy works is shaped by confirmation biases...The way we see the world is shaped by our beliefs. We emphasize facts that confirm ideas we already hold, which is why we read newspapers that echo our own political views and seek out like-minded friends.....Economics is no different; our pre-existing beliefs mould our attitudes toward the facts......This means we often don’t make the wisest economic decisions.
Imagine an environmental NGO that campaigns against poaching. It’s just managed to intercept a consignment of ivory tusks being shipped by a group of poachers who kill endangered elephants. What should it do with the confiscated ivory? Moral intuition tells us that the trade in illegal ivory is reprehensible, which means we should destroy it, right? No! Economic reasoning suggests that the best option would be to do what the poachers were attempting to and sell the ivory. [use the money to pay for preservation policing and selling helps depress prices for ivory]......taking a long-term perspective of the kind offered by economics changes the moral calculus involved in all sorts of decisions.
Markets aren’t the infallible mechanisms they’re sometimes perceived to be. Not every good can be bought and sold freely, and some things, like ivory, need to be more strictly regulated than others.....Imagine, for example, a market in which babies could be traded for cash by parents (the sellers) and adopters (the buyers). It’s easy enough to envisage both parties reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. But here the economist will raise an objection. This exchange, she says, fails because it neglects the interests of a third party, namely the baby. This kind of market failure is the result of what economists call an externality–the cost of an exchange borne by a third party who can’t consent to the exchange.....And that’s where regulation comes in. It’s an attempt to safeguard the interests of all parties
Economists try to make the world a better place by providing insights for policymakers.
Take climate change, for example. Scientists tell us that the best way to prevent catastrophic global warming is to stay within our allocated annual “carbon budget” and cut the amount of greenhouse gases we emit each year......They rely on models to analyze actors’ behavior. Two theories are particularly suited to this purpose.....The first is game theory.....A famous example is the “prisoner’s dilemma,”.......Game theory asks two questions about this kind of situation: First, what’s the best decision for the individual? And second, what’s the best decision for multiple parties collectively?
Another helpful tool is information theory, which centers on the way individuals make use of private information......Analyzing private information lets economists make informed predictions about individual behaviour.
Economic theory begins with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, it says, there was the homo economicus. This fabled character from economics 101 textbooks is the self-interested and rationally calculating decision maker. But as anyone who’s ever felt the lure of unhealthy junk food knows all too well, humans just aren’t perfectly rational creatures.....Take psychology’s homo psychologicus. He’s far from rational, and psychologists are largely interested in exploring the hidden drives that lead him to make decisions that sacrifice his long-term interests for short-term pleasures......Sociology adds another character to our expanding cast–homo socialis.
Because we don’t always have access to all the information we need to make informed decisions, we often buy things because we trust the seller or a recommendation from someone else.......It’s [also] useful to get a handle on another character, homo juridicus, since behaviour is shaped both by legal and social norms.....Take markets. Without them, there’d be little competition or innovation. Yet without the state and the rule of law, markets would descend into anarchy...But it’s not just markets that occasionally fail–states can too.
A more dangerous practice is pandering to special interest groups. That’s especially true in the case of spending commitments, because their true cost can be difficult to calculate.
Businesses face a similar quandary when it comes to decision making. Who gets to make the decisions and why? Every business has multiple stakeholders–groups affected by how a business operates. Balancing the interests of different stakeholders can be a tricky matter. Failure to take action on climate change is an example of what economists call the tragedy of the commons, which essentially refers to a conflict of interest between individuals and the common good....Imagine what would happen if greenhouse gas emissions were reduced globally. Everyone would benefit, right? The problem is that this could only be brought about by individual countries implementing the right policies......each country represents only a small fraction of the total population of the earth.....So there’s a strong incentive to free ride. The tragedy of the commons is the result of widespread free riding.
Economists have come up with two policy proposals that they think might be able to cut through this Gordian knot. The first is a global carbon tax. Polluters would be charged a fixed price per ton of emitted carbon dioxide......The second option proposed by economists is a system of tradable emission permits.
Unemployment in countries like Greece, Spain and France is sky-high when compared to the countries of northern Europe, the United States and Canada.....It’s especially bad for two distinct age groups: young people aged between 15 and 24 at the start of their careers, and older people between 55 and 65 at the end of their careers.....The introduction of the euro as a common currency in 1999 was designed to increase European integration and hasten economic development, but it has come at a high cost. Since 1999, many countries in southern Europe have seen salaries rise faster than productivity. That has made their economies much less competitive than they need to be in today’s global economy.
So what is finance?.....Basically, it’s a service for borrowers. Consider a mortgage; the bank provides borrowers with credit to acquire something they couldn’t otherwise. The finance sector also provides insurance against risk. Without that safety net, borrowers could easily end up in trouble. But as the financial crisis demonstrated, financial speculation can also destabilize the economy. This happens when otherwise useful financial products turn toxic, and a major cause of that is securitization, the financial practice of pooling different kinds of debt and selling it to a third party.If a bank knows it can always flip a mortgage, and get someone else to bear the risks, it’s likely that it’ll become less scrupulous in deciding who’s eligible for a loan......That’s precisely what happened in 2008....the state is the at the heart of economic life in every market economy, because it plays three distinctive and important roles within the market. The first role is one of public procurement.....But the state isn’t only part of the market–it’s also above the market. As a legislative and executive power, it sets the parameters of the market economy by issuing permits and licenses for things like taxi firms, supermarkets and even airline landing rights. In that role, the state is also a referee of markets.....But open competition in free markets provides several goods that the state on its own can’t. Take affordability. Monopolies mean profits because buyers have nowhere else to go...but that also brings competition and lower prices. [This hasn’t been the universal experience of monopolies].
What the platforms of the new digital economy all have in common is that they’re examples of two-sided markets, markets in which buyers and sellers interact via an intermediary. Two-sided markets like Amazon make this a lot easier. By providing a digital marketplace, they bring buyers and sellers together wherever they are. But unlike traditional marketplaces, these platforms also act as regulators to ensure that transactions are fair and smooth. In some cases, they even regulate prices–think of Apple’s iTunes, which limits the charge for downloads to $0.99 per song.....Digital platforms only work when we trust them not to misuse our personal data......But even large companies have been subject to massive credit card theft in recent years. Forty million customers of Target had their details hacked in 2013.
Add to the mix the often dubious terms of use that many websites make users sign and there’s plenty of cause for concern.
One solution is legislation that protects users against one-sided clauses. We don’t need to look far to see what that might look like in practice, since we already have laws of this kind in the offline world.
Innovation is the motor that keeps the economy humming and the wheels of economic growth spinning. But safeguarding innovation requires intellectual property rights....If every innovation were publically available for all to make use of, there would be little incentive for anyone to devote resources to the research and development that underpins all innovation.
By guaranteeing that they’ll profit from their work, tomorrow’s innovators are given an incentive to continue their often difficult and time-consuming work today....That’s where intellectual property rights come in.....But this isn’t the only way of boosting innovation; various governments have experimented with alternative models.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for example, both Britain and France granted prizes to innovators in public competitions.....While this was a great incentive for innovators to compete amongst themselves, there was also a downside. Innovation is usually unpredictable–no one knows what tomorrow’s technology will look like.
Companies have also experimented with novel approaches. One idea is patent pools, an agreement among competing firms in the same industry to jointly control patents that they can all use. That is known as coopetition, a portmanteau of the words “cooperation” and “competition,” and has been used to try to lower the price of innovations.
The key message in this book: The science of economics is, like the world it attempts to describe, complex. There are rarely clear-cut rules that can be applied to all situations; instead, there are trade-offs between different and equally valuable goods. Failure is often a result of not striking the right balance, whether it’s in the sphere of the state or markets. Getting it right requires an understanding of economics, a discipline that can help us achieve the common good when it comes to the most urgent issues of the day, like climate change and the transition to a digital economy.
I’d held great hope for this book. The common good was a concept that I’d heard of but didn’t know much about (apart from controversy over the fencing/enclosure of common land in England). But I think Jean Tirole goes well off subject. Yes there is some interesting stuff there, li,e the game wardens selling the ivory seized from Poachers....or the market for babies that failed because the baby’s interest could not be taken into account. But overall, I thought it a fairly superficial account of the common good. Three stars from me.
January 19, 2022
Excelente. Explora o que há de mais atual no pensamento econômico
July 9, 2021
Tirole offers an extensive coverage of various problems that societies (mostly western) currently face and suggests solutions backed by economic principles.
What I sometimes saw lacking is an explanation of how economic principles feed into particular policy recommendations. Also a bit suspicious to me is how economic expertise is sometimes presented as a holy grail for all problems economies face.
But overall, a good overview of big practical problems that economics should be solving.
What I sometimes saw lacking is an explanation of how economic principles feed into particular policy recommendations. Also a bit suspicious to me is how economic expertise is sometimes presented as a holy grail for all problems economies face.
But overall, a good overview of big practical problems that economics should be solving.
June 26, 2018
Excellent book!
This book starts with the a set of philosophical assumptions that I strongly disagree with - the kind of philosophy that leads a person to lean far left (i.e. equality of outcome is a measure of good, redistribution is necessary and good, the purpose of an economy is to employ people, a group of elites can define and direct towards a common good, etc...).
Often, this would lead to a highly politicized book. But in this case, the author overlays economic realities with those assumptions, and the end result is deep consideration for known and unknown externalities to the kinds of policies that someone with that philosophical viewpoint might pursue.
So you want employers to bear the burden of firing people? Recognize that that will result in a fundamental increase in unemployment, and your cognitive biases will allow it, because the person you see that got fired unfairly weighs more on your thought processes than the hundreds of unknown people who will have a harder time finding jobs.
Paris Accord? Yeah, that was never going to work, anyway.
Very, very good. Obviously, the parts that stood out to me are those that demonstrate how economics will have a real (and in my opinion, negative) effect on society under progressive policies. But there were a couple of things that also made me stop and think if I've really thought things through enough.
I've always believed that the government should regulate against externalities, because they are a part of the real cost of manufacturing. However, I never thought much about internalities, the tendencies that we all have to make bad long term choices. For me, this is very sensitive grounds, and I'm not sure we can allow somebody else to determine which is better, short term or long term gain. But taking it into account when considering economic impacts is something that I'll add to my arsenal.
I'm not going to talk about some of my other concerns with the book, there are many, and I'd love to discuss them with somebody that has read this book. But I'll just finish up by saying that I recommend that all Progressives read this book and recognize why there's pushback on some of your policy recommendations that may not be rooted in immorality, racism, or some other evil. And I recommend that all Conservatives read this book and recognize that progressive agendas can be consistent with economic realities, and once you get to that point, it really comes down to a philosophical debate (purpose of government, what is the greatest common good, etc) rather than a specific policy debate.
This book starts with the a set of philosophical assumptions that I strongly disagree with - the kind of philosophy that leads a person to lean far left (i.e. equality of outcome is a measure of good, redistribution is necessary and good, the purpose of an economy is to employ people, a group of elites can define and direct towards a common good, etc...).
Often, this would lead to a highly politicized book. But in this case, the author overlays economic realities with those assumptions, and the end result is deep consideration for known and unknown externalities to the kinds of policies that someone with that philosophical viewpoint might pursue.
So you want employers to bear the burden of firing people? Recognize that that will result in a fundamental increase in unemployment, and your cognitive biases will allow it, because the person you see that got fired unfairly weighs more on your thought processes than the hundreds of unknown people who will have a harder time finding jobs.
Paris Accord? Yeah, that was never going to work, anyway.
Very, very good. Obviously, the parts that stood out to me are those that demonstrate how economics will have a real (and in my opinion, negative) effect on society under progressive policies. But there were a couple of things that also made me stop and think if I've really thought things through enough.
I've always believed that the government should regulate against externalities, because they are a part of the real cost of manufacturing. However, I never thought much about internalities, the tendencies that we all have to make bad long term choices. For me, this is very sensitive grounds, and I'm not sure we can allow somebody else to determine which is better, short term or long term gain. But taking it into account when considering economic impacts is something that I'll add to my arsenal.
I'm not going to talk about some of my other concerns with the book, there are many, and I'd love to discuss them with somebody that has read this book. But I'll just finish up by saying that I recommend that all Progressives read this book and recognize why there's pushback on some of your policy recommendations that may not be rooted in immorality, racism, or some other evil. And I recommend that all Conservatives read this book and recognize that progressive agendas can be consistent with economic realities, and once you get to that point, it really comes down to a philosophical debate (purpose of government, what is the greatest common good, etc) rather than a specific policy debate.
June 15, 2018
From explaining the game theory and the information theory to the reason why climate change is hard to implement using the analysis of the tragedy of the common. The book is trying to explain how economic decisions are hard to make and thus there is no one size the fits all.
January 17, 2021
An excellent book. This book, is specially designed for non-economists, yet it's an incredible way to get to know the author, to understand the author and to connect in a sense with what he is thinking (for all the economists who want to read the book). The book touches a lot of topics, yet he doesn't really get into any of them very deeply. This, on itself, is not really a bad thing, after all some of the topics in the book are quite complicated, and expanding any further into any of these, would just confuse the reader and require more than just one book. Overall, this book lets readers understand the context of economics, and get a partial look over some of the problems economics may be facing, or may face in the future years (not "problems" as in obstacles for the subject, but as in adaptation). Furthermore, it's probably important to say that he won't really solve most of the problems he talks about, and he won't even expand any further, over these (mostly because of the fact that it would be unnecessary to do so, given that the book is not an academic book, but rather a book from an academic, regarding troublesome questions). Never the less, an absolute must read, if you want to better understand the world, it's complexity and what economics is all about.
I really loved this book, although I've got to accept that sometimes it felt like a duty, to finish the book, rather than a joy. Either way, I finished the book and I don't regret ever finishing it.
I really loved this book, although I've got to accept that sometimes it felt like a duty, to finish the book, rather than a joy. Either way, I finished the book and I don't regret ever finishing it.
November 6, 2020
Jean Tirole's heart is in the right place. He sees a world largely ignorant of sound economic practices and has adopted a mission similar to Spiderman's, with his motto "With great knowledge, comes great responsibility." This book is an attempt to share some of that economic knowledge which could greatly benefit human society. I was impressed with his explanation of why carbon pricing is the best way to address climate change and a number of his other revelations on the benefits of sound economics. However, plodding through Professor Tirole's prose at times bordered on the masochistic. I sympathize with Tirole's desire to spread economics to a general audience, however I suspect most of that audience doesn't make it past page 35.
June 2, 2022
O livro tem capítulos mais ou menos autocontidos. Talvez a melhor estratégia seja ir lendo aos poucos, seletivamente, conforme o interesse no assunto. Ler na sequência e de uma vez pode ser um tanto enfadonho. Não sei se o texto original é bom, mas dá pra perceber que a tradução é horrível. Expressões e até frases inteiras bastante confusas.
February 29, 2020
The 2014 Nobel Prize-winning economist Jean Tirloe wrote a book that is, at first not easy to follow, but after a second read it feels simple and in hindsight obvious. This book deserves a second read.
After reading it, the biggest takeaway for me was the economist's approach to problem solving, which is very useful to have as an alternative. In particular, the economist's way of thinking of people and organisations (economic actors) as components in a system or game allows solving problems by looking at systems as a whole. This might be already obvious to some people, but for me it was a practical perspective I could start tapping into in my daily life.
The book covers the role of the economist in everyday world affairs, how they should engage with the public, and the connection between academic and applied researchers. It explains the behaviour of most economists by describing the world they inhabit, and the incentive structures around them. For instance, you will be more rewarded by the public as an academic if you have a strong definite view on a given topic. Therefore, we frequently see these kinds of opinions leveraged by polititians or exploited by populist movements. Dr. Tirole, encourages rational economists to be stronger in their views, while making it clear that this is their belief with the information available (no two-handed economists). He also encourages economists with different views to team up on topics that they agree on to give a clear picture of what policies and actions are at least never going to be sensible. This way this will prevent populist movements to exploit the ignorance of the public. On the other hand, Jean Tirole hopes that his book is one of many the common public reads to be more informed about the field. He discourages the reading of "airport economics" books, which often are sensationalist and superficial, missing the point and misinforming their readers.
Later, the book explores, thoroughly but not exhaustively, the following world issues: climate change, unemployment and worker rights, the challenges faced by the European Union, the financial crisis, market competition and regulation, and the impact of new digital platforms like Uber on the market. These are the chapters that require multiple reads, since they are covered quite concisely, and require the reader to unpack the meaning of some of the arguments laid out by Dr. Tirole. Not having a background or even basic knowledge of world economics will make these chapters even harder to read.
There are many insights in this book about the aforementioned topics, but the best explained (from my perspective) are the ones around unemployment, climate change, and the European Union.
Making businesses pay for firing employees seems immoral at first, but just like having them pay for their emissions, it actually encourages them to hire more employees (since it is easier to predict the cost of an employee not fitting well in the business). Currently, businesses pay for keeping employees (social taxes and pensions), whereas it is cheap for them to fire an employee, give them an indemnization and stop paying for their salary and their share of taxes. This is backwards. Businesses that fire more workers should be the ones financing the welfare of unemployed workers, not the other way around.
A similar thing happens for carbon emissions taxes and regulation. Developed countries end up reducing global emissions by nothing, when businesses just move their heaviest polluting activities to developing countries with cheaper or no carbon emissions taxes. Jean Tirole, talks about the need for a globally applicable carbon tax in combination with tradeable emissions permits, that can be used to reward countries that pollute less, and punish countries that pollute more. This way, the migration of polluting activities from developed to developing countries (or carbon leakage), will be mitigated. This chapter uses the SO2 emissions reduction in the US as evidence of the effectiveness of tradeable emissions permits, when applied to all affected actors in a system (in this case all states in the US).
These chapters also talk in-depth about the practicalities of applying policies for the protection of the environment and workers rights. For instance, one can not simply switch all existing worker contracts to easy-to-terminate because that will result in a massive wave of unemployment of older workers, which will find it harder to find work later on. Even if one makes this pay-to-terminate policy applicable only to new contracts, it will have an effect on existing contracts, since workers might find it hard to get promoted if they have this old contract, and might be forced to switch their contract to a new one.
It was to be expected that the chapters on Climate Change would be the most in depth considering that is the main reason for the Nobel prize the author got, but the other chapters in this book are equally eye-opening, even if they are not as in-depth.
Overall, I recommend this book for anyone willing to put in the work needed to understand a bit more about the world we live in, the complex problems we face, and the economist's systems thinking point of view on how to approach solving them.
After reading it, the biggest takeaway for me was the economist's approach to problem solving, which is very useful to have as an alternative. In particular, the economist's way of thinking of people and organisations (economic actors) as components in a system or game allows solving problems by looking at systems as a whole. This might be already obvious to some people, but for me it was a practical perspective I could start tapping into in my daily life.
The book covers the role of the economist in everyday world affairs, how they should engage with the public, and the connection between academic and applied researchers. It explains the behaviour of most economists by describing the world they inhabit, and the incentive structures around them. For instance, you will be more rewarded by the public as an academic if you have a strong definite view on a given topic. Therefore, we frequently see these kinds of opinions leveraged by polititians or exploited by populist movements. Dr. Tirole, encourages rational economists to be stronger in their views, while making it clear that this is their belief with the information available (no two-handed economists). He also encourages economists with different views to team up on topics that they agree on to give a clear picture of what policies and actions are at least never going to be sensible. This way this will prevent populist movements to exploit the ignorance of the public. On the other hand, Jean Tirole hopes that his book is one of many the common public reads to be more informed about the field. He discourages the reading of "airport economics" books, which often are sensationalist and superficial, missing the point and misinforming their readers.
Later, the book explores, thoroughly but not exhaustively, the following world issues: climate change, unemployment and worker rights, the challenges faced by the European Union, the financial crisis, market competition and regulation, and the impact of new digital platforms like Uber on the market. These are the chapters that require multiple reads, since they are covered quite concisely, and require the reader to unpack the meaning of some of the arguments laid out by Dr. Tirole. Not having a background or even basic knowledge of world economics will make these chapters even harder to read.
There are many insights in this book about the aforementioned topics, but the best explained (from my perspective) are the ones around unemployment, climate change, and the European Union.
Making businesses pay for firing employees seems immoral at first, but just like having them pay for their emissions, it actually encourages them to hire more employees (since it is easier to predict the cost of an employee not fitting well in the business). Currently, businesses pay for keeping employees (social taxes and pensions), whereas it is cheap for them to fire an employee, give them an indemnization and stop paying for their salary and their share of taxes. This is backwards. Businesses that fire more workers should be the ones financing the welfare of unemployed workers, not the other way around.
A similar thing happens for carbon emissions taxes and regulation. Developed countries end up reducing global emissions by nothing, when businesses just move their heaviest polluting activities to developing countries with cheaper or no carbon emissions taxes. Jean Tirole, talks about the need for a globally applicable carbon tax in combination with tradeable emissions permits, that can be used to reward countries that pollute less, and punish countries that pollute more. This way, the migration of polluting activities from developed to developing countries (or carbon leakage), will be mitigated. This chapter uses the SO2 emissions reduction in the US as evidence of the effectiveness of tradeable emissions permits, when applied to all affected actors in a system (in this case all states in the US).
These chapters also talk in-depth about the practicalities of applying policies for the protection of the environment and workers rights. For instance, one can not simply switch all existing worker contracts to easy-to-terminate because that will result in a massive wave of unemployment of older workers, which will find it harder to find work later on. Even if one makes this pay-to-terminate policy applicable only to new contracts, it will have an effect on existing contracts, since workers might find it hard to get promoted if they have this old contract, and might be forced to switch their contract to a new one.
It was to be expected that the chapters on Climate Change would be the most in depth considering that is the main reason for the Nobel prize the author got, but the other chapters in this book are equally eye-opening, even if they are not as in-depth.
Overall, I recommend this book for anyone willing to put in the work needed to understand a bit more about the world we live in, the complex problems we face, and the economist's systems thinking point of view on how to approach solving them.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 18, 2021
Наверняка есть читатели, которые разделяют мнение о том, что на экономистах лежит как минимум часть вины за наши финансовые проблемы и экономические кризисы. Многие могли встречать частые упрёки в адрес экономистов, за то, что те не смогли предсказать тот или иной кризис.
Но, мне кажется, не стоит перегибать здесь палку. Ведь никто не предъявляет претензий врачам за то, что они не могут предсказать точно в какой момент у пациента отъедет мотор или случится инсульт. Хотя врачи уверенно выявляют факторы, которые к этому могут привести: гиподинамия, вредные привычки и прочие вполне очевидные моменты.
Аналогичным образом факторы, которые способствуют кризисам уже давно известны экономической науке: пузыри на рынках различных активов, влияние чрезмерной секьюритизации на стимулы эмитентов, рост краткосрочной задолженности и возможное отсутствие ликвидности в финансовых учреждениях, плохая оценка банковского риска, риск недобросовестного поведения рейтинговых агентств, непрозрачность внебиржевых рынков, снижение рыночной активности — всё это давно известно любому, кто пожелает об этом прочитать или послушать.
Экономистам-исследователям, наверное, можно поставить в вину, что часто они не прикладывают достаточных усилий, чтобы поделиться своей экспертизой с широкой аудиторией так, чтобы быть понятыми. Ведь эксперты высокого уровня часто неохотно занимаются популяризаторством, поскольку больше заняты созданием новых знаний, а не их распространением — в первую очередь именно это добавляет им авторитета среди коллег, отсюда и распределение приоритетов в сторону проведений новых исследований и написания новых научных статей, а не участие в общественных дискуссиях.
Кроме этого важно отметить, что не исследователи-экономисты принимают общественно значимые решения. Это делают политики, которые часто не слишком утруждают себя вниманием к мрачным предупреждениям экономистов, когда дела идут хорошо, а когда становится плохо, становится плохо всем и бывает уже поздно и невозможно что-то безболезненно исправлять.
Учёные при всём желании не могут на прямую повлиять или ожидать, что политики сами удосужатся прочесть их статьи, хотя почти во многих органах власти работают штатные экономисты, которые могут выступить таким связующим звеном.
Жан Тироль, лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике 2014 года, искренне полагая, что экономистам всё же следует принимать значимое участие в обсуждениях и решениях многих общественно важных проблем, в своей книге "Экономика для общего блага" предлагает всем желающим дискуссию об определении ключевых целей в этом контексте, а также необходимых для их достижения инструментов. В этом ключевая ценность этой книги.
Автор, показывая, как экономика может способствовать в достижении общего блага, рассматривает, возможно, даже слишком широкий для одной книги круг вопросов, влияющих на нашу повседневную и будущую жизнь. Среди них:
- Проблемы климата и глобального потепления;
- Причины, последствия кризисов суверенных долгов государств-членов ЕС, а так же возможные пути выхода из этих кризисов;
- Базовые функции финансов, эффективность рынков, факторы их неэффективности;
- Причины и предпосылки мирового экономического кризиса 2008 года. Если вы читали книгу или смотрели фильм "Игра на понижение", то в целом уже знаете о них. Если же нет, то видение Жана Тироля полноценно вас погрузит в проблематику на достаточном уровне понимания, даже если вы не имеете представления о механизмах возникновения этого кризиса;
- Поиск разумного баланса между свободным рынком и регулированием экономических систем;
- Вызовы цифровой экономики, занятости в постиндустриальном мире, а также сложности с интеллектуальной собственностью и авторским правом в современных реалиях.
Несмотря на внушительный объём книги, на мой взгляд, нельзя сказать, что по всем вопросам представлена исчерпывающая картина — уж больно их много. Но в этом нет ничего страшного — всё-таки жанр книги скорее научно популярный, чем откровенно научный, и не смотря на публицистичность, важно отметить, что "Экономика для общего блага" задает значимый тон в обсуждении роли экономики в наших общих интересах.
Сегодня экономическая наука даёт нам действительно огромный объём знаний, но предстоит сделать ещё очень многое, чтобы они были восприняты теми, кто принимает решения и были использованы правильно — ещё очень многое предстоит сделать для общего блага.
Но, мне кажется, не стоит перегибать здесь палку. Ведь никто не предъявляет претензий врачам за то, что они не могут предсказать точно в какой момент у пациента отъедет мотор или случится инсульт. Хотя врачи уверенно выявляют факторы, которые к этому могут привести: гиподинамия, вредные привычки и прочие вполне очевидные моменты.
Аналогичным образом факторы, которые способствуют кризисам уже давно известны экономической науке: пузыри на рынках различных активов, влияние чрезмерной секьюритизации на стимулы эмитентов, рост краткосрочной задолженности и возможное отсутствие ликвидности в финансовых учреждениях, плохая оценка банковского риска, риск недобросовестного поведения рейтинговых агентств, непрозрачность внебиржевых рынков, снижение рыночной активности — всё это давно известно любому, кто пожелает об этом прочитать или послушать.
Экономистам-исследователям, наверное, можно поставить в вину, что часто они не прикладывают достаточных усилий, чтобы поделиться своей экспертизой с широкой аудиторией так, чтобы быть понятыми. Ведь эксперты высокого уровня часто неохотно занимаются популяризаторством, поскольку больше заняты созданием новых знаний, а не их распространением — в первую очередь именно это добавляет им авторитета среди коллег, отсюда и распределение приоритетов в сторону проведений новых исследований и написания новых научных статей, а не участие в общественных дискуссиях.
Кроме этого важно отметить, что не исследователи-экономисты принимают общественно значимые решения. Это делают политики, которые часто не слишком утруждают себя вниманием к мрачным предупреждениям экономистов, когда дела идут хорошо, а когда становится плохо, становится плохо всем и бывает уже поздно и невозможно что-то безболезненно исправлять.
Учёные при всём желании не могут на прямую повлиять или ожидать, что политики сами удосужатся прочесть их статьи, хотя почти во многих органах власти работают штатные экономисты, которые могут выступить таким связующим звеном.
Жан Тироль, лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике 2014 года, искренне полагая, что экономистам всё же следует принимать значимое участие в обсуждениях и решениях многих общественно важных проблем, в своей книге "Экономика для общего блага" предлагает всем желающим дискуссию об определении ключевых целей в этом контексте, а также необходимых для их достижения инструментов. В этом ключевая ценность этой книги.
Автор, показывая, как экономика может способствовать в достижении общего блага, рассматривает, возможно, даже слишком широкий для одной книги круг вопросов, влияющих на нашу повседневную и будущую жизнь. Среди них:
- Проблемы климата и глобального потепления;
- Причины, последствия кризисов суверенных долгов государств-членов ЕС, а так же возможные пути выхода из этих кризисов;
- Базовые функции финансов, эффективность рынков, факторы их неэффективности;
- Причины и предпосылки мирового экономического кризиса 2008 года. Если вы читали книгу или смотрели фильм "Игра на понижение", то в целом уже знаете о них. Если же нет, то видение Жана Тироля полноценно вас погрузит в проблематику на достаточном уровне понимания, даже если вы не имеете представления о механизмах возникновения этого кризиса;
- Поиск разумного баланса между свободным рынком и регулированием экономических систем;
- Вызовы цифровой экономики, занятости в постиндустриальном мире, а также сложности с интеллектуальной собственностью и авторским правом в современных реалиях.
Несмотря на внушительный объём книги, на мой взгляд, нельзя сказать, что по всем вопросам представлена исчерпывающая картина — уж больно их много. Но в этом нет ничего страшного — всё-таки жанр книги скорее научно популярный, чем откровенно научный, и не смотря на публицистичность, важно отметить, что "Экономика для общего блага" задает значимый тон в обсуждении роли экономики в наших общих интересах.
Сегодня экономическая наука даёт нам действительно огромный объём знаний, но предстоит сделать ещё очень многое, чтобы они были восприняты теми, кто принимает решения и были использованы правильно — ещё очень многое предстоит сделать для общего блага.
October 17, 2020
I actually finished this a while back, but have not been keeping my reviews up. But I want to mention this book because it really does shape my views on the reasons for cautious conservatism being so prevalent in economics despite a now pretty clear and solid theory pointing to healthy progressive policy.
I do not have a great opinion on the content of the book, though I do see it as an important push towards a progressive economics. It is both troublingly vague on the crucial epiphanies on modern progressive economics, while refreshingly being aware that they exist and using some of their arguments.
It is not a book to read if you want an understanding of market inefficiencies, market power, information theory, and the origins of inequality in the dynamic flaws of market exchange. You will find much better understandings elsewhere. But it is a book if you want to understand how an economist steeped in traditional economic training tries to explain progressive breakthroughs as deserving of consideration.
So he does spend some time featuring the ideas of fair compensation in monopoly markets, and mechanisms of competition, and you at least get the important shift to considering the results important.
There is mention of other work, like Piketty, but I found it extremely vague in ways I wouldn’t have expected from someone with such familiarity of the topic. It was clear in the book (and obvious from his actual Nobel-prize winning professional output) he understood the ways in which unfair market inequalities arise and wants to work for a better world.
But you can also see that dirty nature of economic prediction, the expectation that there will be failures, the recognition that historically models have missed critical phenomenon, and the fact that real money is often on the line - have all pushed economists to try not to stray too far from tradition, and so the push is muted. There are cautions about market intervention even where we have clear data of inefficiencies. The book spends more time cautioning against past (typically socialist-based) errors in promoting social welfare than it does in noting the actual damages of the market and the harms of unregulated capitalism, despite putatively being about reducing harm through economic policy.
So, although I think this has some great model discussions necessary to pursue more deeply to understand progressive policy ideas, it ultimately fails to make the case convincingly, and is better understood for the sociology of caution and regressive impulse in economics.
I do not have a great opinion on the content of the book, though I do see it as an important push towards a progressive economics. It is both troublingly vague on the crucial epiphanies on modern progressive economics, while refreshingly being aware that they exist and using some of their arguments.
It is not a book to read if you want an understanding of market inefficiencies, market power, information theory, and the origins of inequality in the dynamic flaws of market exchange. You will find much better understandings elsewhere. But it is a book if you want to understand how an economist steeped in traditional economic training tries to explain progressive breakthroughs as deserving of consideration.
So he does spend some time featuring the ideas of fair compensation in monopoly markets, and mechanisms of competition, and you at least get the important shift to considering the results important.
There is mention of other work, like Piketty, but I found it extremely vague in ways I wouldn’t have expected from someone with such familiarity of the topic. It was clear in the book (and obvious from his actual Nobel-prize winning professional output) he understood the ways in which unfair market inequalities arise and wants to work for a better world.
But you can also see that dirty nature of economic prediction, the expectation that there will be failures, the recognition that historically models have missed critical phenomenon, and the fact that real money is often on the line - have all pushed economists to try not to stray too far from tradition, and so the push is muted. There are cautions about market intervention even where we have clear data of inefficiencies. The book spends more time cautioning against past (typically socialist-based) errors in promoting social welfare than it does in noting the actual damages of the market and the harms of unregulated capitalism, despite putatively being about reducing harm through economic policy.
So, although I think this has some great model discussions necessary to pursue more deeply to understand progressive policy ideas, it ultimately fails to make the case convincingly, and is better understood for the sociology of caution and regressive impulse in economics.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews