Milton Friedman's Magical Thinking

Dani Rodrik Project Syndicate October 11, 2011

larger | smaller

comments: 2

CAMBRIDGE "“ Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman's birth. Friedman was one of the twentieth century's leading economists, a Nobel Prize winner who made notable contributions to monetary policy and consumption theory. But he will be remembered primarily as the visionary who provided the intellectual firepower for free-market enthusiasts during the second half of the century, and as the éminence grise behind the dramatic shift in the economic policies that took place after 1980.

At a time when skepticism about markets ran rampant, Friedman explained in clear, accessible language that private enterprise is the foundation of economic prosperity. All successful economies are built on thrift, hard work, and individual initiative. He railed against government regulations that encumber entrepreneurship and restrict markets. What Adam Smith was to the eighteenth century, Milton Friedman was to the twentieth.

As Friedman's landmark television series "Free to Choose" was being broadcast in 1980, the world economy stood in the throes of a singular transformation. Inspired by Friedman's ideas, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and many other government leaders began to dismantle the government restrictions and regulations that had been built up over the preceding decades.

China moved away from central planning and allowed markets to flourish "“ first in agricultural products and, eventually, in industrial goods. Latin America sharply reduced its trade barriers and privatized its state-owned firms. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1990, there was no doubt as to which direction the former command economies would take: towards free markets.

But Friedman also produced a less felicitous legacy. In his zeal to promote the power of markets, he drew too sharp a distinction between the market and the state. In effect, he presented government as the enemy of the market. He therefore blinded us to the evident reality that all successful economies are, in fact, mixed. Unfortunately, the world economy is still contending with that blindness in the aftermath of a financial crisis that resulted, in no small part, from letting financial markets run too free.

The Friedmanite perspective greatly underestimates the institutional prerequisites of markets. Let the government simply enforce property rights and contracts, and "“ presto! "“ markets can work their magic. In fact, the kind of markets that modern economies need are not self-creating, self-regulating, self-stabilizing, or self-legitimizing. Governments must invest in transport and communication networks; counteract asymmetric information, externalities, and unequal bargaining power; moderate financial panics and recessions; and respond to popular demands for safety nets and social insurance.

Markets are the essence of a market economy in the same sense that lemons are the essence of lemonade. Pure lemon juice is barely drinkable. To make good lemonade, you need to mix it with water and sugar. Of course, if you put too much water in the mix, you ruin the lemonade, just as too much government meddling can make markets dysfunctional. The trick is not to discard the water and the sugar, but to get the proportions right. Hong Kong, which Friedman held up as the exemplar of a free-market society, remains the exception to the mixed-economy rule "“ and even there the government has played a large role in providing land for housing.

The image most people will retain of Friedman is the smiling, diminutive, unassuming professor holding up a pencil in front of the cameras in "Free to Choose" to illustrate the power of markets. It took thousands of people all over the world to make this pencil, Friedman said "“ to mine the graphite, cut the wood, assemble the components, and market the final product. No single central authority coordinated their actions; that feat was accomplished by the magic of free markets and the price system.

More than 30 years later, there is an interesting coda to the pencil story (which in fact was based on an article by the economist Leonard E. Read). Today, most of the world's pencils are produced in China "“ an economy that is a peculiar mix of private entrepreneurship and state direction.

A modern-day Friedman might want to ask how China has come to dominate the pencil industry, as it has so many others. There are better sources of graphite in Mexico and South Korea. Forest reserves are more plentiful in Indonesia and Brazil. Germany and the United States have better technology. China has lots of low-cost labor, but so does Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and many other populous low-income countries.

Undoubtedly, most of the credit belongs to the initiative and hard work Chinese entrepreneurs and laborers. But the present-day pencil story would be incomplete without citing China's state-owned firms, which made the initial investments in technology and labor training; lax forest management policies, which kept wood artificially cheap; generous export subsidies; and government intervention in currency markets, which gives Chinese producers a significant cost advantage. China's government has subsidized, protected, and goaded its firms to ensure rapid industrialization, thereby altering the global division of labor in its favor.

Friedman himself would have rued these government policies. Yet the tens of thousands of workers that pencil factories in China employ would most likely have remained poor farmers if the government had not given market forces a nudge to get the industry off the ground. Given China's economic success, it is hard to deny the contribution made by the government's industrialization policies.

Free-market enthusiasts' place in the history of economic thought will remain secure. But thinkers like Friedman leave an ambiguous and puzzling legacy, because it is the interventionists who have succeeded in economic history, where it really matters.

Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy.

You might also like to read more from Dani Rodrik or return to our home page.

Share Tweet

Reprinting material from this website without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact distribution@project-syndicate.org. var OB_langJS = 'http://widgets.outbrain.com/lang_en.js'; var OBITm = '1292502431965';var OB_raterMode = 'none';var OB_recMode = 'rec'; var OutbrainPermaLink='http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik62/English'; if ( typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined' )OutbrainStart(); else { var OB_Script = true; var str = unescape("%3Cscript src=\'http://widgets.outbrain.com/OutbrainRater.js\' type=\'text/javascript\'%3E%3C/script%3E"); document.write(str); } print recommend Send link clip secure rights COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

Username Password New registration Forgotten password mholzman 06:36 11 Oct 11

I do not see that you have an argument disproving Friedman but rather one of applying your ideas to make your own case with Friedman simply a backdrop.

It would be so much more enlightening if you would just state your own argument, and why you could dismiss the corruption factor(s++) as insignificant.

1311zeta 08:37 11 Oct 11

El problema ahora es ya no la produccion impresionante... las loas a la produccion en tanto se tenia una vision de "progreso por acumulacion" y de intervencion para apalancar la capacidad tecnologica de una produccion que se avisioraba infinita y por lo mismo super atenta a las necesidades humanas... en ese momento se trataba de no mas de 4'000.000.000 de personas.

Hoy sabemos como producir muy eficientemente pero no pdemos mantener una produccion para 7'000.000.000 de personas... se debe poder ser capaz de racionalizar la produccion, no se puede seguir viviendo en un mundo en el que parecia que habia espacio de sobra y recursos no infinitos pero si suficientes, es decir se debe integrar la capacidad de produccion con el manejo de los estados y los ciudadanos.

AUTHOR INFO Dani Rodrik Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. MOST READ MOST RECOMMENDED MOST COMMENTED How to Prevent a Depression Nouriel Roubini To Cure the Economy Joseph E. Stiglitz Thinking the Unthinkable in Europe George Soros The Great Debt Scare Robert J. Shiller The Road from Depression George Soros A New World Architecture George Soros Did the Poor Cause the Crisis? Simon Johnson America's Political Class Struggle Jeffrey D. Sachs The Second Great Contraction Kenneth Rogoff No Time for a Trade War Joseph E. Stiglitz To Cure the Economy Joseph E. Stiglitz Globalization's Government Jeffrey D. Sachs The Road from Depression George Soros The Wrong Tax for Europe Kenneth Rogoff Bleed the Foreigner Harold James ADVERTISEMENT PROJECT SYNDICATE

Project Syndicate: the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries. A unique collaboration of distinguished opinion makers from every corner of the globe, Project Syndicate provides incisive perspectives on our changing world by those who are shaping its politics, economics, science, and culture. Exclusive, trenchant, unparalleled in scope and depth: Project Syndicate is truly A World of Ideas.

Project Syndicate provides the world's foremost newspapers with exclusive commentaries by prominent leaders and opinion makers. It currently offers 54 monthly series and one weekly series of columns on topics ranging from economics to international affairs to science and philosophy.

PROJECT SYNDICATE Net World Esther Dyson How has the Internet changed the nature of government? ...read more Global Warning Bjørn Lomborg Should addressing climate change be the leading global priority? Can economic growth and environmental protection be reconciled? ...read more Roads to Prosperity Dani Rodrik Is free trade always the best policy? Did the global financial crisis of 2008 prove that developing countries should not open their financial systems? ...read more © Project Syndicate 1995 - 2011 How to become a member | Member papers | Support us | About us | Contact us _bizo_data_partner_id = 790 var OBCTm='1292510578203'; var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "8756795" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); _qoptions={ qacct:"p-f8E80KYHdFRZg" }; (function(w, c) { (w[c] = w[c] || []).push(function() { try { w.yaCounter6251587 = new Ya.Metrika({id:6251587, clickmap:true}); } catch(e) { } }); })(window, 'yandex_metrika_callbacks');

You must be logged in to post or reply to a comment. Please log in or sign up for a free account.

I do not see that you have an argument disproving Friedman but rather one of applying your ideas to make your own case with Friedman simply a backdrop.

It would be so much more enlightening if you would just state your own argument, and why you could dismiss the corruption factor(s++) as insignificant.

Read Full Article »

Comment

Show comments

Milton Friedman's Magical Thinking

Related Articles