Why Walden Bello’s critique of economics is decades out of dateWhy Walden Bello’s critique of economics is decades out of date

[OPINION] The phantom menace of ‘neoliberalism’

2026/03/31 12:30
7 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

It brings me no pleasure to write this. Years ago, as an undergraduate at the University of the Philippines, I sat in Professor Walden Bello’s political sociology class. He was a captivating lecturer — provocative, rigorous, and genuinely engaged with the structural inequalities of the world.

The respect only deepens the disappointment of reading his recent piece in Rappler, The existential crisis of mainstream economics. It is a hollow piece of work, one that abandons the rigor I once admired in favor of tired ideological grandstanding.

Bello writes with the breathless urgency of a man exposing a grand conspiracy. The trouble is that the discipline he believes he is unmasking — a monolithic, free-market cult in servitude to corporate overlords — has not existed in top-tier academia for over 30  years. He is shadow-boxing with a ghost.

Bello’s piece is, in form, a review of Angus Deaton’s Economics in America. Here is the first of several ironies. Deaton is not some heterodox outsider lobbing bombs from the barricades; he is a former AEA president and Nobel laureate — every inch a member of the mainstream establishment whose “crisis” Bello is claiming to diagnose. To deploy Deaton as a witness for the prosecution, one must reckon with what his discipline has been doing. Bello, conspicuously, does not.

The most fundamental problem with Bello’s critique is empirical: it describes a profession that does not exist. Modern academic economics has spent three decades undergoing the “credibility revolution,” a wholesale shift away from sweeping theoretical conjecture and toward painstaking causal inference.

The 2021 Nobel in Economics was awarded precisely for this: to David Card, for empirically testing the claim that minimum wage increases destroy jobs, and to Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens, for developing the statistical toolkit that makes such work possible.

Must Read

[OPINION] The existential crisis of mainstream economics

If Bello were to stroll through the economics departments of MIT, Princeton, or Berkeley today, he would find researchers mapping barriers to intergenerational mobility, quantifying the lethal consequences of environmental deregulation, and running field experiments to find which anti-poverty interventions work. He would also find that the rise of monopsony in labor markets and the concentration of corporate power in product markets have become among the most active frontiers in the field.

Those frameworks now supply the legal ammunition for antitrust cases against the largest corporations on earth. The very predations Bello can only theorize about in sweeping terms, mainstream economists are now measuring with precision — and using to hold power to account in court.

Bello’s evidence of the profession’s venality is a list of economists who “deny or downplay the impact of climate change”: Bjorn Lomborg, Thomas Schelling, Robert Fogel, Douglass North, Jagdish Bhagwati, and Vernon Smith. It is a curious list. Schelling, Fogel, and North are dead. Including deceased scholars in a catalogue of contemporary malfeasance is, to put it charitably, an odd methodological choice.

More to the point, four of the six are Nobel laureates — which rather undermines the premise that contrarian positions are the calling card of second-rate hacks in the pay of industry. One may disagree vigorously with Lomborg’s cost–benefit framing of climate policy, as many economists do, but the response to a methodological argument is a methodological counter-argument, not a guilt-by-association smear.

The sociologist’s prescription

Perhaps the most bewildering passage is Bello’s prescription: economics needs to save itself by “learning to think like sociologists.” Modern sociology has experienced a genuine renaissance — but precisely because the credibility revolution spilled over into the broader social sciences. The most impactful sociological work now relies on causal inference and econometric tools pioneered by the economists Bello derides. The disciplines are not at war; they are converging.

The tragic irony is that the kind of sociology Bello practices in this essay: grand, data-light theorizing that leans on buzzwords like “neoliberalism” and “servitude to capital” rather than testable hypotheses—is precisely what modern quantitative sociology has been leaving behind. He is demanding that economics regress to a methodological standard that his own discipline’s leading scholars have already outgrown.

When the empirical argument runs thin, Bello falls back on impugning motives. The dysfunction of the American healthcare system, he argues, proves that economists are mercenaries for Big Pharma. This is factually backwards.

From Kenneth Arrow’s foundational 1963 paper on information asymmetries in medical markets to Jonathan Gruber’s modeling of health insurance mandates, health economists have spent six decades dissecting precisely the market failures and rent-seeking that produce the American system’s pathologies. Blaming them for the lobbying power of pharmaceutical companies is like blaming epidemiologists for the tobacco industry.

He makes a similar error on the minimum wage. Bello presents a tidy story: the evidence is clear, half the profession denies it, and the bankroller is Big Fast Food. But this misreads the literature. Card and Krueger did not settle the minimum wage debate; they reopened it.

The real disagreement is not whether to lie for McDonald’s, it is about how large a wage increase, in which local labor market, produces how much change in employment. That is a live empirical dispute. Calling it corruption requires engaging with the papers. There is no indication Bello has.

The meteor

It is the conclusion of Bello’s essay that most clearly reveals the moral logic of his worldview. Frustrated that the 2008 financial crisis did not usher in the collapse of mainstream economics, he writes that “no less than a much bigger meteor, like the Great Depression of the 1930s, is needed to cut economics from its servitude to capital.”

It is worth pausing on this sentence. The Great Depression destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of people, precipitated a global wave of political extremism, and set the conditions for the deadliest war in human history. To invoke it as a desirable corrective to disciplinary groupthink is to treat mass human suffering as an acceptable price for ideological vindication. A self-professed champion of the world’s poor, openly wishing for a mass extinction event to settle a faculty argument, is not a dissident. It is a caricature of one.

There is a further irony. Deaton’s book is precisely not a call for catastrophe. Its argument is that economics erred by fixating on aggregate GDP while neglecting who benefits and by how much—a diagnosis that calls for more rigorous empirical attention to human welfare, not less. Deaton’s critique is surgical; Bello’s appropriation of it is a sledgehammer.

The real problem

None of this is to say that mainstream economics is without sin. The pre-2008 consensus was genuinely complacent about systemic financial risk, and the profession still struggles to model the macro-structural dynamics of global capitalism. The revolving door between elite departments and financial institutions is a legitimate concern. Publication incentives do distort research agendas.

But the key word is informed. The most effective critics of economics have typically been economists: Daron Acemoglu on institutions and growth, Esther Duflo on development, Raj Chetty on inequality and opportunity, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman on wealth concentration.

These scholars have done more to expose the machinery of inequality with a single regression table than Bello has managed in thirty years of invoking “neoliberalism” as both diagnosis and incantation. The economists’ critiques bite because they are built from within the methodology, not hurled at it from without.

Walden Bello has done genuinely important work: on structural adjustment, on Philippine political economy, on the human costs of corporate globalization. That work deserves to be taken seriously—which is precisely why his essay disappoints. It mistakes a caricature of the discipline for the discipline itself, deploys a partly deceased evidence base, attributes to the entire profession the sins of a subset, and caps with an aspiration for civilizational catastrophe.

The phantom Bello is hunting died in the 1980s. The actual discipline — driven forward by data, humility, and a relentless desire to identify causal truth — is very much alive, and busy doing the work its loudest critics, unfortunately, are not. – Rappler.com


Alfredo R. Paloyo is Professor of Economics at the University of Wollongong in Australia.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

Warning: npm core package axios version 1.14.1 is under active supply chain attacks.

Warning: npm core package axios version 1.14.1 is under active supply chain attacks.

PANews reported on March 31 that, according to Cointelegraph, Socket detected an active supply chain attack on version 1.14.1 of the npm core package axios. Attackers
Share
PANews2026/03/31 13:03
Won-pegged stablecoin KRW1 launches in South Korea on Avalanche

Won-pegged stablecoin KRW1 launches in South Korea on Avalanche

Stablecoin development in South Korea has advanced with the launch of KRW1, a won-pegged token issued on the Avalanche blockchain. Seoul-based digital asset firm BDACS announced the launch of KRW1 on September 17, a stablecoin fully backed by South Korean…
Share
Crypto.news2025/09/18 15:48
First Multi-Asset Crypto ETP Opens Door to Institutional Adoption

First Multi-Asset Crypto ETP Opens Door to Institutional Adoption

The post First Multi-Asset Crypto ETP Opens Door to Institutional Adoption appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has officially approved the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund (GDLC) for trading on the stock exchange. The decision comes as the SEC also relaxes ETF listing standards. This approval provides easier access for traditional investors and signals a major regulatory shift, paving the way for institutional capital to flow into the crypto market. Grayscale Races to Launch the First Multi-Asset Crypto ETP According to Grayscale CEO Peter Mintzberg, the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund ($GDLC) and the Generic Listing Standards have just been approved for trading. Sponsored Sponsored Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund $GDLC was just approved for trading along with the Generic Listing Standards. The Grayscale team is working expeditiously to bring the FIRST multi #crypto asset ETP to market with Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano#BTC #ETH $XRP $SOL… — Peter Mintzberg (@PeterMintzberg) September 17, 2025 The Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund (GDLC) is the first multi-asset crypto Exchange-Traded Product (ETP). It includes Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), XRP, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA). As of September, the portfolio allocation was 72.23%, 12.17%, 5.62%, 4.03%, and 1% respectively. Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund (GDLC) Portfolio Allocation. Source: Grayscale Grayscale Investments launched GDLC in 2018. The fund’s primary goal is to expose investors to the most significant digital assets in the market without requiring them to buy, store, or secure the coins directly. In July, the SEC delayed its decision to convert GDLC from an OTC fund into an exchange-listed ETP on NYSE Arca, citing further review. However, the latest developments raise investors’ hopes that a multi-asset crypto ETP from Grayscale will soon become a reality. Approval under the Generic Listing Standards will help “streamline the process,” opening the door for more crypto ETPs. Ethereum, Solana, XRP, and ADA investors are the most…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 13:31