Spence writes: "This book is about the 100-plus years that began in 1945 and will run to the middle of the twenty-first century."(4). He goes on to call the book a midterm report card (interesting) and when reading the introduction I was struck by the quotes that begin the book.
The first, Hayekean in nature, resonates with me and I think reflects an essential humility that the social scientist and is audience should consider when considering these topics of critical importance.
I am torn in my reaction to the second quote. On one hand, the ability to reflect and revise based upon new information, data, values and evolving belief seems also a commendable perspective. Emergent orders, it seems, do reflect the characteristic of adaptation which is at the heart of change. So I wonder, why am I disquieted by this notion?
The Samuelson quote is provocative and I hope our reading and discussion of Spence will give me a depth of critical analysis to consider what reaction is appropriate.
Back to the introduction and a set of really profound questions on page 5
Can we learn over time to manage something as complex as the emerging and evolving global economy, with its rising interdependencies and complexities?
Is the management and governance of the global economy that was in place for the last quarter century going to work in the future, or is it going to need fundamental change?