Stiglitz Lecture - A Contribution

MM, I am honoured.

Stiglitz’ insight, comprehension and prose have left me in awe on numerous occasions. Yet I was a little disappointed by his lecture. Pen poised, I sat and awaited a riveting sentence, something that would ignite hope in me, a proposal of how globalisation could be made to work, and thus assist me in finishing my dissertation. Unfortunately he reiterated the unacceptable but not so shocking facts that the rich make money from the poor, that there are more people living in poverty than ever before and many are losing faith in the governing institutions. He argued that patents stifle innovation, that knowledge was a public good and that there was a social cost of withholding it. So why Stiglitz, did you not share more of yours? Given that the example provided for patenting was Blackberry computers rather than something a little more socially pertinent, maybe he assumed we were all economists and I actually missed the point.

The week before this, I attended a lecture that launched the UNCTAD Trade and Development Report. Here, Hiener Flassbeck announced a move away from the Washington Consensus—in which Stiglitz had his hand—recognising China and India as the new drivers of the economic world. Hiener’s discussion felt original, which is not to say it was all well received. The point is that it was apparent that more of the realities of the complexity of international development were being addressed. It is clear that neo-liberalism will always fail some. It is capitalist in essence and socially unsympathetic. It is about time social protection, education and health top the agenda.

Although Stiglitz may have made some moves away from a rigid economic line and had me almost convinced, I now believe he still represents the wrong side of an ideological battle. While he may be tweaking the methods, he appears to promote a market-led approach to development. This is one approach amongst many and this needs to be more widely acknowledged. The alternatives need to enter the mainstream development discourse, I personally would like to hear a little more of what China, India and Scandinavia have to say. It is a positive thing that Stiglitz has exposed some of the deficient actions of governing institutions and possibly engaged more people in this debate. I have not read his new book, maybe it does offer some answers, but I can’t help hoping he was on a three book deal.

BC