The Center for Political Economy hosted a lively discussion recently on how to form a more just and inclusive economic paradigm.
The Oct. 8 event featured Daniel Chandler, economist and philosopher from the London School of Economics, together with Columbia faculty Daniel Luban, professor of political Science, and Alex Raskolnikov, Columbia Law School professor, and was moderated by Suresh Naidu, co-director of the Center, which is part of Columbia World Projects and Columbia Global.
Chandler began the discussion by referring to an essay by Larry Kramer, former president of the Hewlett Foundation, which supports the Center for Political Economy, and current president of the London School of Economics. Kramer’s essay “Beyond Neoliberalism: the Problem and Possibilities for Rethinking Political Economy,” provided background for understanding neoliberalism’s rise to dominance and inherent shortcomings.
The launching-off point for the discussion was Chandler’s recent book, “Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society,” which looks to the ideas of political philosopher John Rawls, who called for a potential new economic paradigm rooted in equal liberties and opportunity for all. There ensued a very lively discussion ranging from Rawls’ prescriptions on taxation, to the question of universal basic income, the debate between the importance of growth versus that of welfare, private property, and rising inequality. The panelists were in agreement on much of what John Rawls had been trying to build, but differed on whether his thinking was the best direction for society today.
The discussion came to crescendo when Alice Kessler-Harris, R. Gordon Hoxie Professor Emerita of American History in Honor of Dwight D. Eisenhower, raised a trenchant clarion call from the audience, pointing out the narrow focus of the discussion thus far:
“Rawls seems to to have been locked into the notion of the nation-state, which itself is now in question, and which is fueling the populist authoritarianism that is emerging,” Kessler-Harris said. ”The future of neoliberalism or liberalism in general, is not merely a function of who taxes who, but of questions such as immigration, the movement of populations, racism, gender, sexuality [...] questions that, it seems to me, vitiate what Rawls is trying to do, and certainly seem to vitiate the futures that you are imagining for neoliberalism.”
Naidu followed up on the issue.
“I want to second Alice’s question, because when I read your book I want to question who is the ‘we’? You say we should do this, or we should pass these policies, but when I think about modern politics I just say “who is the we”? And who is inside the borders and who is outside the borders?”
“Another way to put that is ‘fairness and justice to whom?’”, Kessler-Harris concluded.
The panel discussion made clear that there is an urgent need for new thinking in our society to lead us towards a better, more inclusive, model of political economy for our future. Rawls’ thought made some important strides in that direction, and some that were perhaps missteps. More collaborative, interdisciplinary work is needed for a path forward.