Os 5 maiores economistas do século XX e os 3 melhores brasileiros - Adolfo Sachsida (Gazeta do Povo)

Eu teria colocado Eugênio Gudin entre os três maiores brasileiros, e também Mário Henrique Simonsen, junto com Scheinkman.

História econômica

Os 5 maiores economistas do século XX e os 3 melhores brasileiros

Por Adolfo Sachsida

Gazeta do Povo, 01/09/2023

 

"Se eu vi mais longe, foi por estar sobre ombros de gigantes.” (Isaac Newton)

 

Como qualquer ranking, este também tem o seu viés. No meu caso, escolhi os 5 maiores economistas que embutem um mix de contribuições teóricas e participação no debate público, seja deles mesmos ou de suas ideias. Assim, economistas de extrema sofisticação teórica, como Debreu ou Arrow, acabaram ficando de fora de minha lista. De maneira semelhante, economistas com amplo espaço no debate público, mas sem contribuições teóricas, tampouco aparecem em minha lista. Por óbvio, a lista expressa minha opinião e a influência que recebi desses economistas ou de suas ideias. Talvez no passado eu tivesse montado uma lista diferente, mas hoje, após minha passagem por dois cargos na alta esfera de administração pública federal (Ministro de Minas e Energia, e Secretário de Política Econômica), percebi com mais clareza a importância de narrativas, exposição pública e de ideias que despertem o debate junto ao grande público e possam ser implementadas de maneira mais concreta em políticas econômicas críveis e que levem ao crescimento e desenvolvimento econômico sustentável.

 

Os 5 grandes economistas do século XX:

5) Ronald Coase: Sua maior contribuição foi mostrar a importância do estabelecimento de direitos de propriedade para a resolução de problemas econômicos complexos. Esta é uma regra que todo formulador de políticas públicas deve ter em mente: estabelecer corretamente os direitos de propriedade é a solução para uma vasta gama de problemas relacionados a falhas de mercado. Favelas, invasão de terras, poluição, são alguns dos problemas que afligem a sociedade e que podem ser resolvidos via estabelecimento de direitos de propriedade. Coase neles!

 

 

4) Gary Becker: É o responsável pela aplicação do instrumental econômico a um amplo conjunto de problemas sociais. Becker expandiu a ciência econômica, seu instrumental analítico, forma de racionalizar os problemas e suas soluções, para todas as ciências sociais. A ideia de usar o instrumental econômico para resolver problemas relacionados a criminalidade, educação, interação social, entre outros, faz de Becker um dos grandes economistas do século passado.

 

3) Milton Friedman: Foi talvez o maior porta voz da importância de uma economia de livre mercado como o caminho para o crescimento e desenvolvimento econômico. Sempre presente no grande debate público, Friedman cobrava coerência de seus colegas que adoravam liberdade na academia, mas por vezes apoiavam medidas restritivas de liberdade na sociedade. Do ponto de vista teórico, entre outras contribuições, Friedman relacionava a inflação à expansão de moeda. Em outras palavras, para Friedman a expansão de moeda era a maior responsável pela inflação. Lição valiosa para o debate público atual. Friedman também é conhecido por seus alertas aos efeitos não-intencionais das intervenções governamentais na economia. Costumava dizer que as políticas públicas devem ser julgadas por seus efeitos, e não por suas intenções. Perfeito!

 

2) Robert Lucas Jr: É o grande nome da macroeconomia moderna. Seu empenho em elaborar os fundamentos microeconômicos da macroeconomia mudaram para sempre o estudo da macroeconomia. Lucas cobrava que os modelos macroeconômicos tivessem sólida base microeconômica. Além disso, Lucas popularizou o uso nos modelos econômicos da ideia de expectativas racionais (que já existia desde Muth, mas sem a devida atenção). Lucas também mostrou a importância de se ajustarem os modelos econométricos na presença de quebras estruturais, a famosa “Crítica de Lucas”. É difícil falar de macroeconomia moderna sem falar de Lucas. A rigor, é bem provável que Lucas seja um dos economistas mais citados em qualquer lista dos maiores economistas do século XX.

 

1) Friederich von Hayek: Gênio. Contribuições importantes nas áreas de direito, filosofia, história das ideias, além, é claro, de ter sido, em minha opinião, o maior economista do século XX. Seu artigo clássico “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (publicado na American Economic Review em 1945) é até hoje um dos estudos mais influentes no pensamento econômico. Hayek argumentava sobre a importância do mecanismo de preços para estabelecer a correta alocação dos recursos na economia. Além disso, políticas que mascarassem o mecanismo de preços – tal como o famoso congelamento de preços praticado amplamente no Brasil na segunda metade da década de 1980 – levariam inevitavelmente a um problema de escassez e terminariam reduzindo o bem-estar da sociedade. BINGO! Grande defensor do livre mercado, Hayek advogava também pelo uso de moedas privadas, tema em moda hoje em dia. Hayek também tem importantes contribuições sobre a teoria do ciclo econômico. Para ele o governo costumava ser o responsável por parte dos ciclos econômicos ao inflar artificialmente o canal de crédito na economia. Explicação essa que me parece ser um dos pilares da crise de 2015-16 (juntamente com o aumento expressivo do gasto público que antecedeu a crise). Hayek também escreveu o melhor livro de economia que já li: “O Caminho da Servidão” (livro de cabeceira de Margareth Thatcher).

 

Os economistas brasileiros

E os brasileiros? O artigo já está grande, mas achei importante ressaltar quem foram, em minha opinião, os três maiores economistas brasileiros do século XX:

 

Aloisio Pessoa de Araujo

José Scheinkman

Carlos Geraldo Langoni

Tive o prazer de trabalhar tanto com o professor Aloisio Araujo quanto com o professor Langoni. Fica aqui registrada minha admiração e agradecimento.

Leia mais em: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vozes/adolfo-sachsida/os-5-maiores-economistas-do-seculo-xx-e-os-3-melhores-brasileiros/

Copyright © 2023, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.

 

Gary Becker: a morte de um brilhante economista - Pedro Teixeira

Dear Colleagues, [of the Societies for the History of Economics]

you may be aware that Gary Becker has passed away on May 3.

Becker was an leading figure in the expansion of economics' boundaries from the 1950s onwards, and the application of neoclassical economics to non-market behavior, notably through his work on human capital, discrimination, family and population, and addiction. His work was both influential and controversial, being one of the most cited economists of the last decades of the twentieth century.

He did his BA at Princeton (1951) (with Jacob Viner apparently having said that he was the most brilliant student he had ever had - a statement that apparently did not go down well with several of the luminaries that has been taught by Viner...) and his PHD at Chicago (1955), where he would start his career (with his mentors being Milton Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis and T. W. Schultz).

During most of the 1960s he was at Columbia University and at the NBER (then in NYC), developing important work in collaboration with Jacob Mincer and with several young economists that played a crucial role in the development of neoclassical labour economics. With the turmoil of the late 1960s, he would return to UChicago, where he would spend the rest of his long and prolific career.

He was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal in 1967 and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1992.

In recent decades he became more of a public intellectual with some regular collaborations with the media and in blogs and his work became increasingly noted in other social sciences, not the least due to the influence of rational choice theory.

For the announcement by the University of Chicago, please see the following link:

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/05/04/gary-s-becker-nobel-winning-scholar-economics-and-sociology-1930-2014?utm_source=newsmodule

Kind regards,

Pedro Teixeira

Pedro Nuno Teixeira

Director - CIPES, Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies - www.cipes.up.pt

Associate Professor - Faculty of Economics, University of Porto - www.fep.up.pt

Falhas de mercado, falhas de governo: quais as piores? - Gary Becker

O diagnóstico é muito simples: quaisquer que sejam a magnitude e o impacto real das falhas de mercado -- que existem, não se nega -- as falhas dos burocratas de governo e dos políticos são muito piores (e geralmente maiores) e produzem efeitos bem mais prejudiciais, inclusive com efeitos mais delongados, pois é muito mais difícil, e lento, mudar leis e regulamentos, ao passo que mercados invertem suas tendências muito mais rapidamente, de maneira flexível.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

The Great Recession and Government Failure

When comparing the performance of markets to government, markets look pretty darn 

By GARY S. BECKER

The Wall Street Journal,  September 2. 2011

The origins of the financial crisis and the Great Recession are widely attributed to "market failure." This refers primarily to the bad loans and excessive risks taken on by banks in the quest to expand their profits. The "Chicago School of Economics" came under sustained attacks from the media and the academy for its analysis of the efficacy of competitive markets. Capitalism itself as a way to organize an economy was widely criticized and said to be in need of radical alteration.

Although many banks did perform poorly, government behavior also contributed to and prolonged the crisis. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low in the years leading up to the crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi-government institutions, used strong backing from influential members of Congress to encourage irresponsible mortgages that required little down payment, as well as low interest rates for households with poor credit and low and erratic incomes. Regulators who could have reined in banks instead became cheerleaders for the banks.

This recession might well have been a deep one even with good government policies, but "government failure" added greatly to its length and severity, including its continuation to the present. In the U.S., these government actions include an almost $1 trillion in federal spending that was supposed to stimulate the economy. Leading government economists, backed up by essentially no evidence, argued that this spending would stimulate the economy by enough to reduce unemployment rates to under 8%.

Such predictions have been so far off the mark as to be embarrassing. Although definitive studies are not yet available about the stimulus package's overall effects on the American economy, most everyone agrees that it was badly designed and executed. What the stimulus did produce is a sizable expansion of the federal deficit and debt.

The misdiagnosis of widespread market failure led congressional leaders, after the 2008 election, to propose radical changes in financial institutions and, more generally, much wider regulation and government control of companies and consumer behavior. They proposed higher taxes on upper-income families and businesses, and extensive controls over executive pay, as they bashed "billionaire" businessmen with private planes and expensive lifestyles. These political leaders wanted to reformulate antitrust policies away from efficiency, slow the movement by the U.S. toward freer trade, add many additional regulations in the medical-care sector, levy big taxes on energy emissions, and cut opportunities to drill for oil and other fossil fuels.

Congress did manage to pass badly designed laws concerning financial markets, consumer protection and medical care. Although regulatory discretion failed leading up to the crisis, Congress nevertheless added to the number and diversity of federal regulations as well as to the discretion of regulators. These laws and the continuing calls for additional regulations and taxes have broadened the uncertainty about the economic environment facing businesses and consumers. This uncertainty decreased the incentives to invest in long-lived producer and consumer goods. Particularly discouraged was the creation of small businesses, which are a major source of new hires.

The expansion of government resulting from the stimulus and other government programs contributed to rising deficits and growing public debt just when the U.S. faced the prospect of big increases in future debt due to built-in commitments to raise government spending on entitlements. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare already account for about 40% of total federal government spending, and this share will grow rapidly during the next couple of decades unless major reforms are adopted.

A reasonably well-functioning government would try to sharply curtail the expected growth in entitlements, but such reform is not part of the budget deal between Congress and President Obama that led to a higher debt ceiling. Nor, given the looming 2012 elections, is such reform likely to be addressed seriously by the congressional panel set up to produce further reductions in federal spending.

It is a commentary on the extent of government failure that despite the improvements during the past few decades in the mental and physical health of older men and women, no political agreement seems possible on delaying access to Medicare beyond age 65. No means testing (as in Rep. Paul Ryan's budget roadmap) will be introduced to determine eligibility for full Medicare benefits, and most Social Security benefits will continue to start for individuals at age 65 or younger.

In a nutshell, there is little political will to reduce spending on entitlements by limiting them mainly to persons in need.

State and local governments also greatly increased their spending as tax revenues rolled in during the good economic times that preceded the collapse in 2008. This spending included extensive commitments to deferred benefits that could not be easily reduced after the recession hit, especially pensions and health-care benefits to retired government workers.

Unless states like California and Illinois, and cities like Chicago, take drastic steps to reduce their deferred spending, their problems will multiply as this spending grows over time. A few newly elected governors, such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin, have pushed through reforms to curtail the power of unionized state employees. But most other governors have been afraid to take on the unions and their political supporters.

Numerous examples illustrate government failure in other countries as well. Highly publicized are the troubles facing Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain that are mainly due to the growth in spending and debt of their governments prior to the 2008 crisis. Perhaps the governments of these countries, and the banks that bought their debt, expected Germany and other rich members of the European Union to bail them out if they got into trouble. Whatever the explanation, the reckless behavior by these governments will greatly harm businesses and consumers in their countries along with taxpayers of countries coming to their rescue.

The traditional case for private competitive markets goes back to Adam Smith (and even earlier writers). It is mainly based on abundant evidence that most of the time competitive markets work quite well, usually much better than government alternatives. The main reason is not that individuals in the private sector are intrinsically better than government bureaucrats and politicians, but rather that competitive pressures discipline market behavior much more effectively than government actions.

The lesson is that it is crucial to consider whether government regulations and laws are likely to improve rather than worsen the performance of private markets. In an article "Competition and Democracy" published more than 50 years ago, I said "monopoly and other imperfections are at least as important, and perhaps substantially more so, in the political sector as in the marketplace. . . . Does the existence of market imperfections justify government intervention? The answer would be no, if the imperfections in government behavior were greater than those in the market."

The widespread demand after the financial crisis for radical modifications to capitalism typically paid little attention to whether in fact proposed government substitutes would do better, rather than worse, than markets.

Government regulations and laws are obviously essential to any well-functioning economy. Still, when the performance of markets is compared systematically to government alternatives, markets usually come out looking pretty darn good.

Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel economics laureate, is professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.