I struggled with it this year. What have I changed my mind about? What is my standing point? I’ve been looking crazy. Ever since linguist Wim Daniëls coined the great word ‘stood point’ for a standpoint that you have left, I write a column about my standing points every year before the summer. As a remedy for wallowing in my own right. Rarely have I taken as long as this year. While a fundamental comment immediately occurred to me about my writings. But was it a standing point? No, it was more of a realization that I had looked at the world with a limited view for a long time.
About seven years ago I slowly started to delve more deeply into climate change, when I realized that the political fight – and the socio-economic policy – would increasingly be about climate policy. I saw that the lobby of large companies was trying to extract public money with an appeal to sustainability. Time to pay attention. I went in with a policy view. I think that’s why for a long time I mainly focused on how to reduce the emission of greenhouse gas CO .2 can reduce. After all, that was the political assignment after the Paris agreement in 2015. I have been arguing here for a CO . for years2levy, and thus for a hard limit on the economy to stop climate change.
But the problem is bigger and more complicated, and it has dawned on me more and more in recent years: it is about the disappearance of plant and animal species, about an insect crisis, about ecological systems that may (irreparably?) tilt. How do you weigh that sufficiently in policy? Do you need nature give a price? Or do you not get there that way and do you have to set hard limits? I was aware of these issues, but did I get the attention it deserves? No.
The economists of the CPB kept a lid on such blinders in June a beautiful afternoon full self-reflection. There spoke the British economist Diane Coyle, professor at Cambridge and long top civil servant. She opposes how economists like to see themselves: as plumbers or… engineers who provide neutral policy advice. But there are often hidden norms in economic advice. Recognize that, she argued. For example, the majority of British economists were against Brexit: it would harm the economy. But the uneven distribution of economic growth only got more attention from economists after the Brexit vote, Coyle said, while it did concern many voters.
Economists cannot provide technical answers to all political questions, emphasized Coyle. Sometimes they look unnecessarily narrow. Economists can easily break down large infrastructure projects, Coyle said. You calculate the costs and benefits and see: it is impossible. Why don’t economists wonder how a new railway line to a rural area will be a success? For example, by building new residential areas along the railway.
I was thinking of free childcare. Calculate the costs and benefits and you quickly come to the conclusion that Dutch women do not work much anymore. But free shelter can change the norm about women and work, thinks Pieter Hasekamp of the CPB. And yet have a great influence.
One standing point is: I found A and now I find B. But equally fundamental changes of insight are about broadening your view. About realizing: I mainly looked at A and B, but there is still a whole alphabet.
Marike Stellinga is an economist and political reporter. She writes about politics and economics here every week.
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of 16 July 2022