Originally published on Hotnews.ro.

The world economy is passing through a crisis. We know that. But we believe that economic science-I mean intellectual tool kit through which we analyze and explain order and economic disorder is well-thanks.  As economists are in possession of the necessary technical device to tell us exactly what and how. Economic speech's wrong-economy problem. But things really? The way in which is reflected the economic issues in the public debate and the media-not only to us, but all over the world-raise some questions.

Let's look at US-the country with the most nobelisti in economics and the place with the most powerful economic studies programs. Macroeconomistilor predictions have reached the object of public scorn. BA, Oh no wait out the crisis. The curve shape of the crisis when the U-V when I W I L. Whenever public announce an adequate indicator for monitoring the crisis, the mantra is "this Indicator captures the experts again prevazusera as it will look like this and this when it looks like something else." Everything seems bigger, smaller or in another direction than indicated by them.

Maybe it's unfair, but this is the impression that you leave. Proof reading more or less salty that circulate on behalf of macroeconomistilor. (Three macroeconomisti go to a competition. There is a deer. Shoot first. Besides. Shoot second. Besides. The third no longer shoot, falls in the knees, raise your hands towards the sky and begins to shout triumfator: L-they get! Got him! Our team won!)

Another example

In the U.S.: recent crisis under the impact of a resuscitation of the keynesiste rhetoric, old ideas of over a half century, dressed in new clothes. The problem is that when you are invoking the principles of keynesiste, is formed immediately two camps: one camp says that in economics it is inevitable that investors make errors, and the economy should be left to clean only; as if left to pass through the natural cycle, it will rebalance and will begin to (re) work effectively, once paid the price errors. The crisis is nothing but note the decisions wrong, the system is clean. Physiology of the economy must run its course naturally. To intervene to block or slow down the process lead to distortion and malfunction.

The other camp argues that the State must intervene. In the perspective of keynesiana, expecting the economy to cleanse toxins and to rebound naturally is too costly and risky. The State must do something, even if it's not very clear what effect. During the recession, the State economy by "stimulating" actions such as lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, or tax manevrand taxes. In other words, the State lies at the economy, manipulating monetary and credit flows, butonand and dirijand depending on how he looks like it moves things. In other words, this camp is not seen adverse effects induced by the intervention of the State, either do not believe that they are just as harmful.

Legitimate questions

For discussion of front no matter who is right. What matters is that in a matter of such importance, economic discipline is scindata. Tell us and one opposite them, using arguments that were launched decades and centuries ago. And she does it with the attitude that the whole matter is one purely scientific, based on complicated formulas and figures that only initiatii can judge them truly.

What we say but they all about economic science? With its apparent accuracy with jargon or intimidating, with his mathematical formulas and statistics, she has earned a respected place in the public imagination. But is this really worth it? Can she predict and explain as its advocates claim?

We will not attempt an answer here and now. Just an observation: the science and the public economic rhetoric are far from having the precision and theoretical or practical on capacitatatile who claim that they have. It is increasingly evident that, in order to maintain the credibility and legitimacy of the public discourse and rhetoric concerning economic need an adjustment in tone and claims. Moreover, it seems that great attention must be paid to an even more elemental level, not at all sophisticated. It is about the very meaning of the terms vehiculati.

Social market economy

Let's take as an example the well-known term arhi "social market economy". Everyone-politicians, experts, media-uses the term profusely. And all behave as if they have a void of ambiguity.

But this is not so. What is the social market economy yet? That form of etatism and not much criticised interventionism of v. Klaus? Or a modern form of economic liberalism, as a notion of the ordoliberali parents found you? When we say "social market economy", we are referring to the idea of founding or the way in which this idea has evolved and morphed over the last half century? The social market economy is an idea of right (Christian-Democrats say)? Or pattabiraman (such as social-democrats suggests)? Both camps seem to claim.

Here is so much as a notion circulated and influence is not yet at all. Not all understand the same thing when we say "social market economy". And then the question is: what we support and criticize what we are about this?! We have here an example of flagrant confusion in elementary public discourse.

An interesting approach

To not be liked again as articles such as not critical to the city, but it does suggest something constructive, to say that this is the context in which we must look to a recent initiative of the German Foundation Konrad Adenauer. The Foundation, whose mission involves the organizational centerpiece, spread and development of the idea of the social market economy, are now trying an approach meant to confront this problem. And, interestingly, he does from an experiment or pilot project, which will take place in Romania, in partnership with the Institute of Popular Studies.

In short, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation proposes the creation of a working group in Bucharest, on the theme "social economy and Ordoliberalism of the market". For a year and a half it will function as a trial for an exploratory project, which will answer the above questions by default. The explicit objective is threefold: (1) study of the economic ideas of ordoliberale and social market economy (origin, evolution and implementation), with particular emphasis on their relevance to the 21st century and for the situation of our country and the EU; (2) spread of these ideas in the sphere of mass media, academic and policy in Romania and (3) the study and evaluation of the opportunity and the means to adopt the practice in countries like Romania of organizing economic formulas, inspired by the principles of the social market economy.

The group will be composed of specialists from academia and research, experts from the public sector and of State, representatives of civil society and the business environment, journalists, politicians and students. Will be translated to the main reference works from the bibliography, will be organized several conferences, applied studies will be encouraged. It will tatona the possibility to move from principles and theories to the designing of public policies inspired by this. It will be an experiment. A laboratory in which the Romanian and German side will learn. First about the relevance and applicability of ideas. Others about repablicabilitatea and extending this type of experiment in sharpening and edifying.
Modesty and credibility

Obviously an approach like that of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which may be replicated in other contexts, and the other is not only a modest contribution to solving the great problems of today's economic speech. You can't expect miracles. But it's a start. If the economy is not really science what predictive claims to be more moderation wouldn't hurt. And then, maybe a reconsideration of the kind of attitude, more modest, proposed by authors such as founders of ordoliberali you thought of social market economy could contribute something to the improvement of the current situation in which the public's expectations, raised and maintained by claims of stiintificitate, are constantly and inevitably Iurie Rosca.

In chasing the illusion of technical and statistical accuracy, economical science seemed to lose much of that conceptual clarity elementary which, when present, can you make it so useful to the public.  This clarity, what is intotdeanua with a better focus on the practical aspects of public and economic discourse, but can be recovered. And here the role of some modest initiatives, but what stakes transcend national boundaries in laboratory experiments, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, may be decisive.

PS: Konrad Adenauer Foundation Experiment mentioned above debuts this week. Hotnews readers surely will be kept up to date with its evolution.  To the extent that some of these readers are directly interested in directly and his works, they can notify your interest to: costel.stavarache@isp.org.ro