A era de Friedman

Andrei Shleifer cunhou a expressão d' A era de Friedman para designar as últimas décadas, já que nelas se verificou, a nível mundial, um significativo progresso sócio-económico, radicado, em sua opinião, na aceitação teórica e prática dos preceitos defendidos por aquele economista.

Ricardo Reis, no Diário Económico, em A era de Friedman, comentou o artigo, aceitando em grande parte essa tese, qualificando-a no que respeita à evolução político-económica da China e da Índia. Também, no Diário Económico, João Wengorovius Meneses, em E agora, Ricardo Reis?, a contrario, nega a idéia do avanço sócio-económico ter sido, nesse período, tão arrebatador, invocando um estudo do “Center for Economic and Policy Research” denominado “The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress” e a opinião de Joseph Stiglitz. Pranab Bardhan e Dani Rodrik tinham já referido a tese, de modo crítico (ver aqui).

Fiquei com a impressão que Costa Neves tinha falado disso no Açoriano Oriental - referiu Ricardo Reis na crónica de 6 de Março - mas não consegui descobrir o AO onde tal tivesse sucedido.

Finalmente, J. Bradford DeLong, em Time to declare the end of the Age of Friedman, num jornal de Taipei, aborda também o tema. Qualquer dos artigos deve ser lido na totalidade. Excertos do artigo de Bradford DeLong:

"Friedman adhered throughout his life to five basic principles: strongly anti-inflationary monetary policy; a government that understood that it was the people's agent and not a dispenser of favors and benefits; a government that kept its nose out of people's economic business; a government that kept its nose out of people's private lives; and an enthusiastic and optimistic belief in what free discussion and political democracy could do to convince people to adopt principles one through four. "

"But I say yes in part to the "Age of Friedman" proposition, because only Friedman's set of principles self-confidently proposed both to explain the world and to tell us how to change it. Still, I would build up a counterbalancing set of principles, because I believe that Friedman's principles do not, ultimately, deliver what they promise..."

"...Nevertheless, the distribution of economic welfare produced by the market economy does not fit anyone's conception of the just or the best. Rightly or wrongly, we have more confidence in the correctness and appropriateness of political decisions made by democratically elected representatives than of decisions implicitly made as the unanticipated consequences of market processes.

"We also believe that government should play a powerful role in managing the market to avoid large depressions, redistributing income to produce higher social welfare, and preventing pointless industrial structuring produced by the fads and fashions that sweep the minds of financiers."

"Indeed, there is a conservative argument for social-democratic principles. Post-World War II social democracy produced the wealthiest and most just societies the world has ever seen. You can complain that redistribution and industrial policy were economically inefficient, but not that they were unpopular. It seems a safe bet that the stable politics of the post-war era owe a great deal to the coexistence of rapidly growing, dynamic market economies and social-democratic policies."

"Friedman would say that, given the the world in 1975, a move in the direction of his principles was a big improvement. When I think of former US president Jimmy Carter's energy policy, Arthur Scargill at the head of the British mineworkers' union and Mao's Cultural Revolution, I have a hard time disagreeing with Friedman about the world in the mid-1970s. But there I would draw the line: While movement in Friedman's direction was by and large positive over the past generation, the gains to be had from further movement in that direction are far less certain."