How strong should government intervention be?
Meade was awarded the prize in 1977 for his role in educating people on how to correctly apply economic theory to a particular political problem, influencing the vast fields of economics and politics simultaneously.
According to Meade, there are three main objectives of economic policy; achieving freedom, equality, and efficiency. Despite conflict between these objectives, Meade underlined the importance of government’s role in balancing all three aspects to achieve gains for everyone. He also gave economic reasoning and political advice on how to tackle restrictions to any of them, to find the best combination.
Meade approached and interpreted economic problems differently. Instead of using abstract economic measurements, he focused on understanding the basics of economics and applied these to real-life political problems. That said, Meade used theories such as the international trade theory and international payment theory to answer policy discussions on exchange and inflation rates. “I’m not proud of it, but I’ve read very little of other people’s writings. However, I’ve listened to a great deal of discussions and written them down. And the result is, I don’t think that my work on international economics was very original, but I think the IMF found the part on the balance of payments very impressive. They used it when thinking about economic policy of international payments,” he said back in 1989.
Meade repeatedly stressed the point that he was not a ‘tool-maker’, and especially not a ‘tool-user’. Rather, he characterized himself as a ‘tool-setter’, someone who tries to take existing or known theories and apply them to the political context. He recommended and described how to use them most effectively and efficiently, for example in international commerce or financial policies.
How can we expand demand that leads to greater employment?
While studying at Cambridge and Oxford, Meade entered the field of economics like many of his fellow students: with the desire to learn more about how mass unemployment was affected by 19th century policies and, ultimately, to find a solution to fix the malfunctioning system.
After years of research and investigation, Meade proposed a ground-breaking solution – a policy that would differentiate the pay rates of workers, and achieve total employment, i.e. make sure everyone looking for a job can get one. He stated that policies addressing economic problems through education, training and increased investment "are concerned basically with raising the output per head of those who are in employment, rather than the number of heads that will find suitable employment,” which doesn’t help to minimize the unemployment rate. He later went on to design the labor-capital-partnership and the idea of a social dividend.
Get new questions as they launch
Even though his theory was described as brilliant and paradigm-changing, Meade also liked to point out the flaws in his own theories.
I’ve always said that a real economist should be ambidextrous because it’s his duty, when he gives advice on the best policy, to point out all the possible snags.
He recalled an old anecdote from US President Harry S. Truman, who’d asked for a one-armed economist, because whenever he received economic advice, he’d get the famous answer of, ‘On the one hand, Sir, you should do this. On the other hand, Sir, you should do that.’
How will the system work when 40 percent of jobs disappear?
There’s no question that new advancements in technology will dramatically change the way we work, distribute wealth, and claim ownership, but what will the job market look like in the future? Some believe that around 40 percent of jobs might disappear in the near future, making our lives very different. Facing these questions, Meade offered a strikingly fitting and novel approach. To achieve full employment with new methods of production in place, there ought to be a low-wage cost and a high return on the machinery. This, in fact, would mean a revolution in ownership and distribution of income, as our economy would no longer rely on wage rates as the main instrument to distribute wealth.