50 Years Later, Hayek’s Ideas Are Still Relevant

50 years ago, Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Prize for his work on the nature of knowledge and why fully controlling societal and economic outcomes is a fool’s game. In his Nobel lecture, Hayek evaluates the "pretense of knowledge", which assumes we can scientifically construct accurate predictions and plan society accordingly. Half a century later, we know far more about society and the economy than we did in Hayek’s time thanks to unprecedented amounts of data, sophisticated mathematical and economic models, and mind-blowing computing power. This progress has only amplified our confidence in our ability to control societal outcomes. After all, with all these tools at our disposal, is Hayek’s knowledge problem still relevant? 

I put it to such declarations of victory for modern social analysis that, far from irrelevance, Hayek’s scepticism approaches timelessness. 

Hayek articulates the "knowledge problem" in his seminal work The Use of Knowledge in Society. He argues that social knowledge is dispersed, localised, and often tacit. For example, the information that drives markets—such as your personal desire to buy ice cream tomorrow morning—is spread across countless individuals and evolves constantly. It is impossible for a central planner to gather and process all this information to make effective decisions. Instead, the market price system serves as a decentralised mechanism that aggregates this dispersed knowledge, allowing individuals to coordinate their actions without requiring a complete understanding of others' circumstances.

Without a doubt, we know a lot more today than we did in 1974. Research has grounded our social scientific theories, from human behaviour to algorithmic financial markets. Advances in inter alia computing, econometric tools and artificial intelligence have enhanced our ability to identify patterns and make robust predictions. Continuous technological improvements create the impression that we are closing the gaps in our knowledge. However, despite this progress, we have repetitively failed in anticipating and mitigating significant economic disruptions. 50 years ago, the maths could not predict everything confidently. Today, the maths still couldn’t accurately predict the 2008 financial crisis, the sudden collapse of major financial institutions like Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse or even post COVID inflation crises. The more we know, the more we should appreciate how little we know.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Hayek’s Nobel speech is the importance of humility. This is needed in science tout court, but most importantly in social sciences. Predictions and recommendations of economists in particular have a profound impact on societies, especially considering their impact on public policy. Economists have an inordinate influence on public policy. Whether we’re talking about tax laws or healthcare policies, many of these affect people’s daily lives, their jobs, finances and individual freedoms. As such, they should be made cautiously and with an awareness of the limits of their understanding.  

Public policy failures serve as stark reminders of why humility is essential. The handling of COVID-19 from the US to China is a prime example of this. Despite previous experiences with pandemics like SARS and Ebola, advanced studies on epidemiology, the nature of societal interactions and economic forecasting, the responses to the outbreak of COVID were a botched mix of scientism, panic, inaction and authoritarianism. The consequences of these missteps are still being felt today. If there’s one thing to learn from this experience, it is that our knowledge remains limited. And if our predictions and actions have that much impact, we should think twice when we make them and how much faith we put in them.

Let’s not forget that human relations and society become even more complex everyday. While studies have made progress on understanding the dynamics of human interactions, they seem to be changing rapidly. Society is metamorphosing equal parts unpredictably and quickly. Whether technologically (from the internet to AI), in terms of globalisation, climate change, or cultural shifts - today’s change borders on unmanageable. Will we really be able to make perfect predictions of socio-economic phenomena with mathematical models in the years to come? While we cannot say with a 100% certainty that it cannot happen, it is still very unlikely. As long as we deal with the study of phenomena impacted by millions of humans taking actions in a world which changes everyday, we have to acknowledge that these phenomena could always elude us.

Hayek’s contributions remain resolutely relevant, and will continue to be apposite long into the future. As we celebrate the anniversary of Hayek’s Nobel Prize, we should celebrate his core contributions to the nature and processes of social scientific knowledge itself. Hayek would invite us to take a step back from all the debates and reflect on our limitations and fallibility. We know a lot about some things and very little about many things. This should always be at the back of our minds.

Image: Flickr/LSE Library

Licence.

No image changes made.