Herryman Moono – Economist
I have heard and read statements attributed to some of my learned seniors in the economics profession calling for the regulation of the economics profession in Zambia. They are sickened at the plethora of voices on economic matters in the country by “non-economists”, and they feel that such voices should be the reserve of privileged few academically trained economists. They are advocating for the regulation of the economics profession, through some form of an ‘Economist Act’, like the Accountant Act or the Act the governs Lawyers so that only those who fit the profile of ‘economists’ as defined in such an Act can speak on economic matters. This, apparently, will bring sanity to the economics profession, they argue.
I find these arguments not only illogical, but they mirror a shallow understanding of the evolution of the history of economic thought, and importantly, reflect a narrow appreciation of what economics is and the role of economists in society. I mean no disrespect to the advocates of such regulation, but I think it is important that the wider public appreciates the alternative view to the regulation of the economics profession being advocated for.
So the question is:
Would the economy of Zambia be better off if only economists spoke about the economy, yet, the economy affects all?
Would there be high regard for the rule of law if only lawyers talk about the law which all alike, irrespective of legal training?
Would Zambia have better rains if only the meteologists like Jacob Nkomoki talked about the weather or climate change?
Would our politics be advanced if only those who trained in political science spoke about or participated in politics?
I think the answer to all the above questions is an emphatic no!
But let’s assume that the economists’ voices would have the determining force on the direction and level of economic prosperity, what type of economists should we be listening to? Economists are not uniformly trained, there are different schools of thought which are guided by empirics and history.
So who is an economist? What makes one a great economist?
This question is perhaps aptly answered in John Maynard Keynes’ obituary essay for a prominent economist Alfred Marshall in 1924. For the benefit of my readers who may not have read history of economic thought, Alfred Marshal (26 July 1842 – 13 July 1924) is one of the most celebrated economist who rose to prominence in 1890 when he published his treatise entitled: Principles of Economics. This book became the most dominant text book in economics in England and the world over. Marshal was a professor at Cambridge University, and among his students was celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes, the proponent of the Keynesian Theory which advocates for government intervention in the economy through Fiscal and Monetary Policies. He published his masterpiece, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in 1936, challenging the traditional economic view of ‘free market economy’ without government intervention.
In his obituary essay to Alfred Marshall, Keynes highlights his qualities of a professional economist as follows:
“The study of economics does not seem to require any specialized gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not, intellectually regarded, a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy or pure science? An easy subject at which few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher—in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician.” (Keynes 1924).
If we thus use Keynes’ description as a benchmark for what makes not just an economist, but a Master Economist, then it follows that we CANNOT regulate the economics profession!
How can you regulate an artist? That would kill the imagination and brilliance that comes with thought.
How can you regulate a historian? That would be equivalent to trying to control the past, an absurd and impotent undertaking.
How can you regulate a statesman? A philosopher? How can you regulate a mathematician who tries to understand the world in the eyes of indices and symbols? It is an exercise in futility!
The discipline of economics has shown us that it is not only those who read economics or can understand econometrics that can contribute to the growth of the discipline or the growth of economies:
1. John Forbes Nash, the pioneer of the Theory of Non-Cooperative Games under Game Theory never read economics, he studied mathematics, yet, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994.
2. Elinor Claire “Lin” Ostrom, a political scientist who studied Political Science and never even entered an econometrics class was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 for her work on the “analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.” She remains the only woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics – and never studied economics!
If these people had studied under the tutorship of the Zambian advocates of the regulation of the economics profession, they would not have thrived in their careers to reach world acclaim and recognition in economics. They would have been told to “shut up” and leave the analysis of economics to those who sat in a classroom being taught basic demand and supply.
Their artistic, philosophical and mathematical minds would have been subdued, and none would have won the Nobel.
If economics is a way of thought, a discipline focused with choices, then surely everyone is an economist and practices economics every day! You don’t need to have studied economics to know that you ought to realign your household expenditures if inflation is high, or that you ought to reduce you travel distances if the price of fuel is increased. You don’t need to be an economist to understand that bus fares will rise if the fuel price is increased – it is simple common sense which all know, understand and fully appreciate! It is therefore absurd to think that the people affected by the economy should not have a say in the economy.
For those who pride themselves in econometrics, I am laughing at what an “Economists Act” would say with regards the appropriate analysis for decision making. At higher levels of econometrics, it usually breaks down to either a Frequentist Approach/Time Series Analysis or a Bayesian Approach to analysis. These approaches do not always converge in their conclusions, and as such, policy advice based on any will depend on the arguments the analysts put forward. What would the Zambian Economists Act pick? Both? A combination of the two?
I think our relevance as economists is not in how loud we speak, but the value of what we speak to advancing economic progress in the country. We should not be intimidated by the voices of non-economists to the point of shutting their voices. Rather, with the understanding of what makes a Master Economist, we should appreciate that we are but a part of a national team aimed at enhancing the economic outcomes of the country we all love, Zambia. If progress is to be made, we must recognize, appreciate and embrace the voice of many experts in different fields aimed at advancing Zambia economically.
In doing all we do as economists, let us recognize that we do not have special competence in determining which policy should be the top priority of all objectives of the government, however, we have a special role and ought to be in charge of helping in translating the proposals into operative ways to facilitate their implementation. On 15th August 2016 in an article entitled: “Lungunomics: Zambia’s Post-Election Economy”, I shared my thoughts on how economists can play a role to helping the newly re-elected president. I argued that there are two approaches to economic governance that are at President Lungu’s disposal. The first is that he can come up with a set economic targets and tell his economic team to come up with a policy package to achieve those targets. Here, the quality of his economic team – those charged with Fiscal and Monetary Policy – will determine how successful the targets will be.
Alternatively, President Lungu can tell his team what type of economic policies he can politically adopt and then direct his economic team to come up with a package of fiscal, monetary and other policies that reinforce each other to achieve those targets and objectives. His economic team should be able to advise him of the costs and outcome of such policies. With this, the PF government can then use its political strength- having amassed the bulk of Parliamentary seats – to get such a package through the National Assembly and ensure its effective implementation. Once that rational approach is adopted, the president can then hold the economic team accountable for the results. In both cases, the President benefits from economists and non- economists alike, and this ought to be appreciated.
As I conclude, let me remind my fellow economists that the practice of economics cannot thrive in a vacuum. Without politics to govern, engineering to produce goods for consumption and export, entrepreneurs to innovate and create business, farmers to produce and competent government administrators to facilitate for the smooth mix of all factors of production, whatever economists say will be mere rhetoric without value. We as economists must realise what is most important: It is not recognition through rhetoric, but the advancement of knowledge for economic prosperity. As a group of economists, therefore, we must be organised for success. Having had the invaluable opportunity of serving in the governance board of the Economics Association of Zambia, I believe that our association ought to be a learned society that promotes the study and practice of economics in academia, government and the private sector as well as the encouragement of unregulated freedom of economic discussion by all Zambians irrespective of their profession and or level of training.
With the above submission, I hope my learned seniors will re-think their discourse and perhaps revisit their History of Economic Thought.
Pompwenomics! There are thieves waiting for you to fall to their trick and do a way with your hard earned money…
Herryman Moono: Thanks a lot. Just to add but one point, in 1981, more than 300 academic economists, including Marvyn King who was then teaching at Birmingham University, wrote an open letter to the Times urging Prime Minister Thatcher to change the economic course of her government as it was leading to to de-industrialization and job losses in Britain. Thatcher refused to change course and what the academic economists feared did not happen; the UK entered a period of economic growth that was only interrupted in 1989. You can check this out using Google. It is well articulated in the book CONTROVERSIES IN MACRO-ECONOMICS by Price and Chrystal. It was one of my readings in graduate school.
Go teach kids in Secondary school, they need you.
Us are discussing the cost of Sukhoi luxury Jets abena Lungu are buying. That’s our level of economicscs.
There is no practice on earth which stops people from talking about the subject matter. Law, for instance all policies or Laws they are developed with the communities or stakeholders at the center. The major role the Lawyers will play will be to draft the articles which end up in Parliament and we all know who is there to ratify our laws and elsewhere world over. Just because someone is failing to do his job should not be the cause to block people expressing themselves how the are affected by the poor economic outlook.
Whoever is planing to regulate who talks about economic situation in Zambja is a witch.
You can effectively regulate and self regulate your members in firms and individuals and set the example of sound economic reasoning and do outreach to recruit from the unregulated and establish a body or cadre of economic analysts beyond the traditional Keynes and Ricardo bar-lo To attempt to stop people non of your members to engage in economic views may not be appropriate but those who seek advise will look to EAZ membership for consultations
You can regulate the Members and encourage the non members to be affiliate or whatever category of membership that suits them Agreed by nature of economic though self regulation is the first before you move to…
standards codes and acts You move that way so that even amongst the members of EAZ that speak about the fundamental performance of kwacha in recent past can apply themeselve and provide pricise and evidendenced research Its intereting to hear the commentaries and one could suport Dr Haba for regulations of your members first and firms then set the example for the general public
See the yield on 10-year US government bonds and see the reasoning against the gains and losses on the dollar
An excellent and polite rebutal of absolutist thought. I believe the subject was originally called “Political Economy” and that speaks to ideology. But then again if you have been educated in a place where thinking is a sin, voicing objection is a crime…. And you get some power, we all know where that leads to. Aluta continua
@Herryman Moono,
Well said! We all need each other, economists and non-economists alike. But it is indeed in order to advance the profession of economics and call upon economists to speak authoritatively on matters of economists. Our journalists should, as is the practice is in the developed world, engage experts within any area to speak authoritatively on matters that relate to their expertise. But that is not to say that non-economists who may be practitioners knowledgeable on best practices in matters of economics cannot be allowed to speak on matters of economics.
Any endeavor within the country that has potential to impact the well being of a Nation should be regulated as a matter of National Security. Bodies such as those that represent Lawyers, the Media and Economists must be regulated because they can be weaponized by outside interests or domestic political agendas to the detriment of the Nation as a whole. We have seen how Lawyers, the Media and Economic commentators have the potential to impact National security matters both domestically and internationally by unqualified or miquaded talk in their area of specialty. It’s therefore incumbent upon the Government as custodians of National Security to put in place measures that ensure sanity in these sectors and professions. Misguiding the Public and the wider International Community on National…
To stop people commenting on economic matters in the popular press would amount to totalitarianism which Russia isn’t new to. Non-economic specialists cannot express themselves in learned economic journals in ways that would meet the editors’ criteria. That is what bars non-specialists and not law. Economists themselves are frequently divided on economic issues as the Brexit example illustrates in the UK.
….issues in these areas that have potential to negatively impact the Country is therefore key. We have sen in this age how Data is bring weaponized in the recent of Case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal that has potential command People’s opinions and manipulate them for an assigned agenda like regime change or in the case of Britian the costly Brexit. So let’s not be short sighted and ignore reality by wanting to appear clever and making text book quotes on the subject. Think of the people.
Yes, we have seen Cambridge Analytica and the like.What we have not seen in those same parts of the world is the regulation of the right to comment on economics.
We are thinking about our people by pooling knowledge (sense and nonsense) in economics and then letting the powers that be select what,to them,is good.
Thanks Moono for the grounded rebutal. We need intra-instutional checks and balances. I think Habazoka missed the point. The LAZ Act does not stop individual members of society to represent themselves in any court of law, including Supreme and Constitutional Courts. What the LAZ Act outlaws is unqualified persons representing other persons in court’s of law. In their interpretation, lawyers consider any person who has not been to Law School and admitted to the bar as unqualified. An insult it is to other even more complicated fields of study like rocket science, but that is how lawyers disregard all other professions. The bottom line is that a non-lawyer can represent himself in any court of law and even argue his case against so called State Counsels and win his case. I have several…
…..I have several examples of persons that have successfully represented themselves in court’s of law, among them General Godfrey Miyanda and Peter Sinkamba. I repeat: no law bars persons to represent themselves and express their views in court’s of law. No law should be enacted to stop citizens to express themselves on any issue be it economics, engineering, rocket science, philosophy and whatever field of study. ….
Herryman, on this score, I totally agree with you and impressed with your well articulated thoughts and clarity on this issue. It is so embarrassing that we can have hopeless and totalitarian economists like Haabazoka spouting the nonsense of banishing a large section of our society from even talking about economics which affects them everyday.
That fat man studied his economics in Russia, where there is no freedom of speech of speech let alone freedom to think. So fat as he is, the idyot thinks people should have no say on anything until they get a degree. This is utter foolishness of a fat foolish selfish man, Haabazoka.
Quote “If you allow others to speak they might just prove that what I say is Busht” Hambazonke
Right now careless talk on Zambia’s economic prospects and outstanding debt profile has impacted investor confidence. This has caused our currency to be devalued and led to price increases on our main FX expenditure item fuel. The depreciation has translated in a rise in prices of essential commodities and services. People should stop being idealistic or partisan and become blind to this in their blogging. Let’s be objective, if your govt of the day is made to fail by such carelessness it’s the people that suffer unnecessarily. Let’s institute a Law and regulate! No more armchair unqualified commentaries like a football commentator because you like football. Leave it to experts.
I do not agree.What has led to “careless talk” is the Government’s propensity to be mute and to invoke it’s right not to explain many of it’s actions/inaction to the citizens
Failure to explain on matters of national importance is very fertile ground for rumors and speculation
On the contrary Investors are well informed and do not trade on noise information but noise also creates appetite to arbitrage before information crystallizes No long term Investor will fail to see the real potential in the Zambian economy They are not speculative long-term
Its good to here points from the elders
I like this chap, not only because he is a clever Oxford educated chap who came from a humble background, but because he actually writes a lot of sense and his articles are very entertaining (please read the one one on IMF and STDs), but he needs to get rid of the Ali_ba_humble umu guys hash tag. He is far from humble, he has some bragging element sometimes, but he is much better than his counterpart Oxford educated Zambian based in the US Prof Kenneth K Mwenda; this is another very intelligent Zambian who due to him probably being born in Luanshya brags about designer wear; honestly. Make no mistake they are both very clever Zambians and can add a lot to the development of Zambia but because of their humble backgrounds like to show off about having gone to Oxford, if it is Prof K Mwenda…
They can do SERIES ECONOMIC DATA TABLES or GLOBAL FISCAL MONITOR the likes of IMF and World Bank
Those are the likes of economists we need to add value to Zambia’s econometrics like HA said
I think EAZ need to have an extra ordinary general meeting for the sole purpose of removing the dunderhead habazoka and replacing him with herryman moono.
NO they need both schools of thought to create a vibrant base of skill sets needed in their EAZ
Dr HA is very factually intelligent and this Moono writes intelligently also giving me a view that the small and slower to grow EAZ needs them both
We meet in Switzerland on invitation this December We may see them both with like minds
My knowledge and understanding of economics may not be deep enough to argue against Herryman’s analysis but I still hold the view that regulations of economics is necessary in certain areas at national level, particularly the administration of finances.
If a single mother or a common marketeer can employ simple economic basics to regulate her income/expenditure, what more governments and national institutions? With a more solid regulatory policy, there would definately be less embezzlement and misappropriation of funds in many African countries.
Something very seriously wrong with Lubinda Habazooka. But very simple to understand, like T Hacks. All that Habazooka wants is recognition, and a ministerial appointment from President Lungu. So dont waste precious time on the idoit.
Lubinda Habazoka is an opportunistic big fat shallow minded bafoon who just want recognition and a position in the pf government.Thanks Mr moono for dressing him down.
Maybe we should also regulate politics so that only professionally trained political scientists can comment on politics?