The End of the Free Market or The End of State Capitalism?

Ian Bremmer will be on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tomorrow. Below is my review of his new book:

Political risk guru Ian Bremmer examines the growing momentum of "state capitalism" in his new book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War between States and Corporations? Bremmer argues that state capitalism differs from free-market capitalism in that politics rather than profit is the main driver of decision-making. For this reason, it threatens to curtail free markets and the global economy. It is the latest chapter in the "rise of the rest," or the expansion of non-Western states in the international system.

Capitalism takes many forms but all of them can be distinguished by their "use of wealth to create more wealth, a broad enough definition to capture both free-market and state capitalism," Bremmer notes. In the free-market form of capitalism, the job of the state is to "enable" wealth generation by enforcing contracts and limiting the influence of moral bads such as greed—the latter can lead to market failures, which have occurred periodically since the Dutch tulip craze of 1637. Free-market governments attempt to ensure that the economic game is played fairly.

In contrast to free-market capitalism, the economy in state-capitalist regimes is dominated by the state agenda. "Forced to choose between the protection of the rights of the individual, economic productivity, and the principle of consumer choice, on the one hand, and the achievement of political goals, on the other, state capitalists will choose the latter every time," Bremmer explains. Continuing the sports game analogy, state capitalists control the referees as well as the main players.

Bremmer admits that state capitalism isn't new. He traces the first reference to an 1896 speech by Wilhelm Liebknecht, a founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. But due to recent questions regarding the merits of free markets after the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the need for job growth and economic stability in less-than-democratic regimes, and the growth of the economies and influence of state-capitalist countries, this form of capitalism is catching on worldwide.

While there is "no single model of state capitalism," its leading practitioners, China and Russia, "share a well-developed sense of risk aversion," having recently abandoned communism as their guiding philosophies. Other notable users of this model include energy-rich states, such as Angola, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Another cluster of countries in this group, some of which have benefited from rising commodity prices, include emerging markets that have only tentatively committed to free-market principles, such as Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey.

Another way to identify a state-capitalist country is by looking at the use of four specific policy tools. One policy tool favored by state capitalists is the national oil (and gas) corporation (NOC), such as Gazprom of Russia, China National Petroleum Corporation, and the National Iranian Oil Company. NOCs like these own 75 percent of the world's crude-oil reserves. A second tool is the state-owned enterprise, such as China's First Automobile Works.

A third tool is privately-owned companies—so-called national champions—that are supported by the state to develop a "commanding position" in an economy. The Brazilian mining concern Vale, according to Bremmer, is a prominent example of a company that was coerced by its government to advance the state objective of stimulating the economy.

A final tool is the sovereign wealth fund (SWF), the largest of which includes the UAE's Abu Dhabi Investment Authority valued at $300–650 billion and Saudi Arabia's Monetary Agency valued at $430–500 billion. Many types of governments have SWFs but they "tend to be as transparent—or as secretive—as their governments," Bremmer writes, noting that Norway's Government Pension Fund is exceedingly open and accountable. Norway is an example of a country that has some state-capitalist trappings but is not in the state-capitalist camp. Similarly, the U.S. bailout of financial institutions was designed to "save the free market, not bury it," Bremmer notes. "It's not the tools that count; it's how they're used. But countries that have all four of these institutions tend to be state capitalist," he writes.

How do these tools threaten the free market? While Bremmer is careful not to predict a new Cold War, he does worry about fissures in the international system and state-capitalist support for undemocratic regimes such as Guinea. As the head of Eurasia Group, a political risk company, it is Bremmer's job to ask what if. He poses at least ten hypothetical scenarios in the book, including given the mutually assured economic destruction (or interdependence) between the United States and China, what happens if China closes the door?

While the phrase "The End of the Free Market" may capture public anxiety in America today, Bremmer should have called his book "The End of State Capitalism"—he bets that free markets will win the "war" with statists. First, state capitalism just doesn't have the same appeal as an ideology that communism had, it is "more a set of governing principles than a coherent political ideology." Second, state capitalism is actually a sign of domestic political vulnerability. It is a response to the risks countries face as they open up, which Bremmer detailed in his earlier book The J Curve. Meanwhile, free markets hold several advantages over their statist cousins: Most importantly, these systems better facilitate innovation and long-term growth.

Bremmer lays out several recommendations to ensure that free markets do indeed prevail. Most of these recommendations are just good common sense for America: keep markets open, invest in hard power, pick the right fights, and welcome world-class foreign workers. Bremmer is saying subtly that for America to continue to lead it should be strong, smart, and principled. In other words, it should stay true to its values.

Economists Growing Brains

Economists often say they are embarrassed by their profession. I am not exactly sure why, but it probably has something to do with the common belief that economists are generally poor and work in the "miserable science." As John Keynes famously said, "In the long run, we are all dead."

Mainstream, neo-liberal economic theory, which students learn in most American universities, provides basic tools for understanding the underlying mechanics such as supply and demand.

I personally enjoyed my economics classes in college and grad school, but soon realized that the real world, not the hypothetical world of economics case studies, is far more complicated and even more counter intuitive than one would conclude after reading a microeconomics text book. No surprise. Like, if people maximize utility or wealth, how does one explain charity? A cynic would say that donors get some type of benefit, such as prestige, social standing, or other side benefits. No room for altruism. I remember talking to a brilliant French economist in Tokyo a few years ago and I was trying to make sense of some of his ideas by applying rational choice theory. He scoffed and called "rat choice" passe.

Remember, the answer to any economics question is, "It depends."

Seeing Joseph Stiglitz speak in Tokyo several years ago was also an enlightening experience. The Washington consensus of free trade and low budget expenditures was not the final word on development policies? Top economists, such as Stiglitz, Jeff Sachs, Larry Summers, Alan Blinder, and Robert Reich, are drawing attention to the failings of free market economics. Some thinkers, like our friends Sanjay Reddy, Thomas Pogge, and Christian Barry, are even applying ethics to economics, and asking is this policy just... is it fair?

New York Times reporter Patricia Cohen reports on this cadre of emerging heterodox economists in an article last week titled "In Economics Departments, A Growing Will To Debate Fundamental Assumptions." You can read it here. I remember just a year ago the phrase heterodox economist was alien to some. One person asked me what that was; I simply said, "the opposite of orthodox." Oh.

Cohen's point is that "in recent months" economists are feeling less ashamed about questioning the fundamental assumptions, less fearful of being ostracized. I might put the time frame in "recent years," but here are a couple of nice snippets from Cohen's report:

For many economists, questioning free-market orthodoxy is akin to expressing a belief in intelligent design at a Darwin convention: Those who doubt the naturally beneficial workings of the market are considered either deluded or crazy.

But in recent months, economists have engaged in an impassioned debate over the way their specialty is taught in universities around the country, and practiced in Washington, questioning the profession’s most cherished ideas about not interfering in the economy.

“There is much too much ideology,” said Alan S. Blinder, a professor at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Economics, he added, is “often a triumph of theory over fact.” Mr. Blinder helped kindle the discussion by publicly warning in speeches and articles this year that as many as 30 million to 40 million Americans could lose their jobs to lower-paid workers abroad. Just by raising doubts about the unmitigated benefits of free trade, he made headlines and had colleagues rubbing their eyes in astonishment.

The article ends with this great story on Dani Rodrick:

Most mainstream economists think that voicing any skepticism or doubt provides “ammunition to the barbarians,” he said, and allows narrow-minded people to “hijack any argument to suit their purpose.”

Mr. Rodrik said he used to worry about this until he realized that “on any issue, there are barbarians on both sides,” so there was no point in shading an argument to “suit one set of barbarians over the other.”

“And I’ve slept a lot better since.”