econ6610

An Inquiry into Book Review

2009-01-11T04:54:00.000-08:00

AN ATTEMPT OF INQUIRY INTO BOOK REVIEW

According to Wikipedia, book review is an attempt to analyze “content, style and merit” of the book. Book review is subset of literary criticism, a practice dating as old as early Greek era. The practice has gained greater prominence in this information age which has seen massive explosion of information in terms of quantity and also, unprecedented access of information to the masses (made possible by internet). These two factors have made practically impossible for a person to be able to read most books on any given subject, given limited life span of human being. It is said that the last person who had known all that was available to be known during his/her age was Aristotle.

This writing doesn’t claim to tell anything new to the readers. For in fact, with a single click through Google, one can easily find superior writings on the subject matter itself. What this writing will claim to do is to be able to coordinate ideas available on the subject matter so as to enable readers to be able to benefit by not having to undertake the labor of Googling, themselves. What will this writing also claim not to do, is to provide Islamic approach towards reviewing books, for the writer doesn’t believe there is an Islamic way of reviewing book anymore than there is a Christian or Judaist way of doing so. However, the writer also believes that “principles” espoused by religions (be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc) such as justice, empathy etc will not harm shall they be applied hand-pickedly during the course of book review.

In so far, one admits that book review is an undertaking/action in itself, one can approach this in two ways.
1) Principle based approach is an approach which prescribes set of broad based principles or values that are to be upheld while reviewing book
2) Rule or formula based approach prescribes set of steps or rules or formulas that are to be followed in order to review a book.

Both of these approaches are not without advantages and disadvantages. While principles based approach acknowledges there is no one way of doing things right, rule based approach avoid ambiguities by articulating step by step approach. While rule based approach may encourage “ticking the box” attitude (which is bad thing, by the way), the principle based approach may dispense away with consistency. In short, both have merits and demerits. Our approach would be to approach book review in both of these ways.

PRINCIPLE BASED APPROACH

The writer suggests that following principles ought to be followed for an undertaking of effective book review:

a) Objectivity

A good book review ought to be objective. Objectivity (opposed to subjectivity) can be taken to mean neutral, mind-independent or truths that are discovered rather than created (Source: Wikipedia). Being objective means, to be “value” free. However, it will be wise to bear in mind what constitute objective might not be agreeable to all; hence “objectivity” can be subjective too!

b) Professionalism

A professional book reviewer is one who “utilizes his/her independent judgement and professional ethics” in the course of book review. Independent judgement, is different from being objective, as the former calls for a judgement to be made, while the latter simply calls for independence or lack of bias. A ethical book reviewer shall avoid selling his soul for purpose other than discovering of truth during the course of book review.

c) Competency

A minimum level of competency in terms of understanding of the subject matter is a pre-requisite of effective book review. However this should not be confused with mastery or specialization of the subject matter. Understanding can be developed through reading relevant writings on the subject matter.

d) Justice

While absolute justice is the reserve of God and His Judgment’s Day, this shouldn’t stop a good book reviewer from striving towards justice. Justice, here could be taken to mean all three (a to c) things above, and/or any other aspect that reader here can construe. Justice ought to be considered in the context of the actors involved, i.e. author, readers and perhaps the subject matter itself.

The above list of “principles” are not exhaustive, one may add or subtract where applicable.

RULES BASED APPROACH

Rule or formula based approach suggests step by step approach towards book review. The writer here suggests the following “best practices” to be adopted;

a) Forming Expectations

Developing expectations about what the book should be all about, helps to keep big picture in mind while reading the book, hence one’s ability to evaluate or assess the book. How is one to develop expectations? Read the title or preface of the book and then Google up the subject. After reading the book, one can decide whether it lived up to its expectations.

b) Identification of Broad Theme or Objective

Book’s theme may or may not be so apparent, but nevertheless need to be identified. Theme needs to be distinguished from arguments or premises. More of which later.
An example of a theme would be Soro’s idea of the need to fix global capitalism in this book “THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED”.

c) Identification & Assessment of Arguments

Though not all books are argumentative in nature, most that make lively book review are. Simply put, argument is a statement that makes a claim. However, arguments are more than just a claim. An argument ought to have proper structure for it to be effective. An argument, depending on whom you ask, may consist of premise and conclusion. An example would be “Some Greeks are logicians, therefore some logicians are Greeks”. Here, “Some Greeks are logician” is a premise, whereas “therefore some logicians are Greeks” is conclusion. Arguments can assessed based on their strength. Some arguments are strong, while others are weak. To say that UIA should improve quality of its education so that it could attract rich Arabs to come and study, is weaker argument than to say that it should be done so that society/Ummah/everyone would benefit.

d) Conclusion

In the concluding part, the reviewer may want to provide opinion as to whether the author has achieved the objective he set to achieve. Here, the reviewer may bring his personal opinion of the subject matter and assess the overall book, whether it has done justice to the subject matter by e.g. covering main issues involved etc. Here, the reviewer can also provide reference or comparison to similar books that have been written on the subject matter and give recommendation as to whether the book is worth reading. A good reviewer should be able to convince readers to either pick the book up or drop it!

The writer hopes that the above shall be found useful and it will generate interests and curiosity among the readers to experiment and find out more about subject matter.

TYPES OF ARGUMENTATIVE BOOKS

In order to oppose or evaluate an argumentative book, it will be helpful that books types are identified. Argumentative books come in two types:

Principle books (“what” books)

These books debate the “objective” or “principles”. For example, whether or not right to wear hijab be deemed human right etc. The question here is “what” constitutes human rights?

Mechanism books (“how” books)

These books tend to be about mechanism i.e. how to we best achieve certain objective. For example should we jail or hang murderers. Here the objective is punishment or justice. A reviewer is not expected to question the need of punishment or the need for justice but whether either of the mechanism will best serve justice.

In the case of Soro’s book, the writer would deem it as both Principle and Mechanism book. It is Principle book to the extent that it espouse capitalism as best form of organizing economy, and it is Mechanism book to the extent that it provides mechanism e.g. through creation of World Central Bank to solve global financial instability.

Islam and Mammon

2009-01-09T21:46:00.000-08:00

Dear all,

Can anyone tell how can we get the entire Timur Kuran book above, in cheapest possible way?

Have people grown smarter or dumber?

2009-01-09T20:45:00.000-08:00

Hi all,

I came across of this debate in the "economist". Thought of sharing it with you all. Follow the link pls>>>> http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/246.

FYI, there are also other debates posted by economist online which make for good leisure reading in free time. Pls enjoy. Thanks

Khalid's Special Request

2009-01-07T08:52:00.000-08:00

Our good friend Khalid has requested that blog be made part of assessment of the course i.e. by allocating 5% to 10% marks for blog participation. But I disagreed, as it would be too burdensome as some of us are taking more than 1 subject. What do you guys think?

2009-01-06T18:50:00.000-08:00

THE REVIEW
REVIEW OF THE CRISI OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED
By Muhammad Arif Zakaullah.

Dr Arif begins the review of the book by giving the author's motivation for writing the book. According to him was "... was the realization that the real threat to global capitalism was within". The idea originally conceived in the post cold war "...was being done in a leisurely manner ..." but the Asian financial crisis made him to realize the urgency of the book, hence the publication in November 1998.

According to Arif, the idea that forms the basis of Soros' argument is that we live in Global Capitalist Economy. In his word, “The development of global economy has not being matched by the development of global society". But the key player - the nation state is not well equipped to deal with the system; as a result of which global financial system are beyond the control of national or international authorities. This concerns, however faces the challenge of economic theory "...that market is self correcting and global economy can flourish without any need for global society". Soros observes that this market fundamentalism is a serious threat to global capitalism as it seek to impose "... the supremacy of market value over political and social values". The success of capitalism, to him, is in combining the two forces. Soros then proposes the establishment of international central bank to regulate the activities of borrowing nations and the use of reflexivity in economic analysis to curb the onslaught of market fundamentalism on global capitalism.

In his review, Arif the morality approach to capitalism by someone who, himself, was a key player and stresses how an individual may thorn between social value and individual interest. This, in Arif’s word “... uncovers the deep and wide crack in the philosophical foundation of capitalism which, everybody believed to have been firmly and permanently patched by Adam Smith". The idea of international central bank by Soros did not go without receiving a knock from the reviewer when he says that apart from the fact that the author himself acknowledges the political infeasibility of the idea, the proposed supervisory body , IMF, is seen my many nation as an agent of financial oppression of few from the north. Finally the reviewer noted that despite the fact that the book focused on supervisory role of national banking and financial system of borrowing nation, it provides little insight to the strategies and speculative activities to know what will be the consequences on their financial system.

The reviewer is not however, just to criticize the book as seen in his agreement with the author on the issue of democracy "...that government lacks the political will to change the rule of the game due to influence of the pressure group". He then notes that the book should be seen as a reinforcement to "The future of capitalism: how Today's Economics Forces Shape Tomorrow" by Lester Throw. Arif then concludes his review by suggesting area of further discourse.

METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEWER
The reviewer commenced the review of the book by showing he has really read the book by bringing out the authors goal of writing the book and the points he brought to justify his claims, making reference to deferent pages as situation demands. After establishing his understanding of the book in author's perspective, he then raises some areas he does not agree with, sighting other authorities to buttress his position. He also shows that he is not out just to criticize the book by pointing out areas he agree with the author and even shows the readers another book that will enhance better understanding of the book. He round-off his work by suggesting area of further intellectual research.
The reviewer, however, failed to show whether the writer has really achieved his targeted goal at the end of his review. This not withstanding, Arif has really done a great job on the book.

Will be joining soon

2009-01-04T23:08:00.000-08:00

I've yet to read the article and do the review. Try my best, will come back asap.

2009-01-04T06:47:00.000-08:00

The crisis of global capitalism: open society endangerde is a 245 page book writen by George Soros in response to asian financial crisis to show that market fundamentalism is a threat to global capitalism. He argues that market fundamentalism ignores collective decision making and social values thus promote worship of individualism which is only concerned about individual success not minding its effect on the society at large. To curb this, Soros sugests the introduction of International central bank that will monitor the banking system of borrowing countries and the use of reflexivity analysis by economics.

The reviewer,Dr Arif, commenced the review of the book by bringing author's aim of writing the book '...in the realisation that market fundametalism is a threat to global capitalism". After bringing the point on which the author premises his arguement as enumerated above, he then raises a number of issues about the book as follows:
(1) Self contradiction: The reviewer noted that the author contradicts self in a number of ways to the extent of personality contradiction which the author himself realised but resulted to self justification where he noted ....
(2) Challange of the rationality axiom on which the morden economics rest
(3) Challenge of the virality of libral democracy as practise by the west to be able to the proposed reform
(4) Feasibility of the proposed international central bank as to its acceptability in the south.
The reviewer is not however, just to criticise the book as seen in his agreement with the author on the issue of democracy "...that goverment lacks the political will to change the rule of the game due to influence of the pressure group". He then notes that the book should be seen as a reinforcement to "The feture of capitalism: how Today's Economics Forces Shape Tomorrow" by Lester Throw. Arif then concludes his review by suggesting area of further discourse.
METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEWER
The reviewer commenced the review of the book by showing he has really read the book by bringing out the authors goal of writing the book and points he brought to justify his claims, making reference to deferent pages as situation demands. After establishing his understanding of the book in author's perspective, he then raises some areas he does not agree with, sighting other authorities to butress his position. He also shows that he is not out just to criticise the book by pointing out areas he agree with the author and even pointed out to the readers another book that will better understanding of the book under review. He round off his work by suggesting area of further interlectual research.
The reviewer, however, fail to show wether the writer has really achieved his targeted goal at the end of his review. This not withstanding, arif has really done a great job on the book.

Review of Dr Arif's Book Review (George Soros Book)

2008-12-31T22:26:00.000-08:00

Review of the book review by Dr Arif Zakaullah

(Title: THE CRISIS OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM: OPEN SOCIETY ENDANGERED by George Soros)

To give the author’s arguments proper context, it is imperative that readers be first introduced to the author. George Soros is a successful speculator, political activist and philanthropist, who have in the past been accused of making “immoral” fortunes by speculating on currencies of countries like Malaysia, Thailand, UK and Russia. At present, the author is Chairman of Soros Fund Management which controls controversial Quantum Group of Funds established since early 1970’s. The author’s thoughts are highly influenced by writings of Karl Popper, which he had indirectly admitted in the past by naming the institute founded by the author-Open Society Institute after the book by Karl Popper.

The reviewer (Dr Arif) starts by laying out the argument by the author on the peril of having “global financial markets” or “global capitalist system” (defined by the author as consisting of “….Interest rates, exchange rates, and stock prices… international financial
capital…..”) not being sufficiently controlled by the national or international authorities. This was supposed to present a threat to the Global Capitalism or Open Society as the title of the book suggest. By virtue of this being the major argument of the book, it would have been worthwhile here had reviewer questioned premises and conclusion of the argument made. E.g. question that, ultimately how valid/justified was author’s move of limiting the scope of discussion of a subject as broad as global capitalism to just a discussion of global financial system. The question about the nature of “control” that author claims to be lacking and why are they lacking?, went largely unexplained by the authors and unquestioned by the reviewer. One can’t help but speculate that the author’s conclusion that Global Capitalism or Open Society will ultimately collapse due to unsubstantiated premises of his (discussed earlier), is simply an exaggeration meant to create sensation out of this highly populist subject.

This is not to deny that author may have some valid concerns over the working of global financial market. If the issue is that of control, then author is guilty of not making it clear as to what is his concern with regard to control? Does he fear that nation states might not be able to control capital movements, and therefore will eventually reject capitalism or is he afraid that they might over control and stifle capital movements and therefore eventually undermine capitalism itself? Even if we were to assume that nations might lose faith in merits of free capital movement, this in no way suggests that they would reject capitalism in totality.

One assumes that excesses of capitalism in the context of global financial market would be taken to mean speculative activities in currency market and capital controls, in the like that took place in 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. One fails to understand how things would be any different under the author’s “global society” mechanism. Would things have been different for Malaysia or Thailand, had they read author’s book before 1997? (if it was available then). As far as Asian crisis is concerned, there are still large disagreements among economist as to what caused the crisis itself (was the currency devaluation resulted from wholesale dumping of currency by the “speculators”, the cause or the effect of the crisis?). To suggest solution to the problem without diagnosing or at least agreeing to the diagnosis of the problem itself, may not be a prudent step after all.

The author goes on accusing the proponents of free markets for opposing control mechanism of global financial markets on the ground it would have impeded the working of free market. Next explained are the ills of unfettered capitalism. Here the author seems to have gone overboard in its criticism of free market. The author seems to have ignored the unexpected positive impact that free market had in recent years e.g. in region like Africa where cheap hand phones brought by free market had actually transformed people lives previously unimagined even by free market critics. Author also fails to consider possibilities of “government failure” when it tries to correct market failure. It would have been interesting too had the author given some analysis on limitations, if any, in his views of the government roles.

The reviewer then correctly points out the contradictory stance taken by the author when he criticizes individuals’ choices which lead to undesirable social consequences, as the author himself in the past had seemed and acknowledged indulging in unsocial acts.

The author goes on talk about limitations of democracy in devising policies to correct market excesses and how democracy could be held hostage by interest groups. Additional analysis on how democracy can also actually lead to or risks leading to protectionist policies by succumbing to public pressure would have been enriching if added, given the current context of financial crisis which has seen high protectionist sentiments being expressed by countries including US. The logical question that arises is; if democracy is inherently flawed, how would one expect it to check excesses of free market? Or does one have to live with that limitation?

Author attempts to suggest that global financial stability will come only through creation of “supra national system of regulation” governed by global society. However, the author is sceptical of the idea of global state. It seems he wants to have all fruits of global government but not the global government itself, which is equivalent to trying to have cake and eating it too!

The reviewer has correctly pointed out that author proposal of creation of International Credit Insurance Corporation (ICIC) and increasing transparency in the borrowing countries banking systems is “very general and sketchy”. This is not surprising given Soros lack of background or experience working with international institutions such as IMF or World Bank. Although the reviewer has rightfully raised other issues surrounding IMF reform, no question has been raised on the lack of diagnosis of the problem by the author.

The author’s claim that his theory of reflexivity that claims one’s expectations can influence the outcome is mutually exclusive from the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is at best questionable. This is based on his misunderstanding of what EMH’s meaning is. In EMH’s defense, economists have argued that “EMH does not require a stock's price to reflect a company's future performance, just the best possible estimate or forecast of future performance that can be made with publicly available information. That estimate may still be grossly wrong without violating EMH.” (source: Wikipedia).

At the end of the review, the reviewer talks about his views on the “larger context of the future of capitalism”. (It would be appropriate to also understand reviewer background in order to give his views a proper context. The reviewer, currently lecturing in Malaysia, is a Muslim of Asian descent whose academic interests lie mainly in the subject of US political economy and Islamic economy). The reviewer goes on to interpret major events in the last decades and tries to give it proper context. However his assertions that the West owes its prosperity to Asian financial crisis, sales of weapons to third world, Iraq War or by perpetuating undemocratic regimes in oil rich Muslim countries is hard to digest. If at all, it is the Muslims countries that are overcharging the West for oil by virtue of oil cartel-OPEC. The reviewer is yet to come out from resource based mentality that suggests that it is the natural resources rather than technology and innovation that drive wealth creation in today’s world. At the end of review, the reviewer correctly points to the need for more inclusive perspectives to be taken in future discussion of problems that have global implications.

However, there are still more legitimate issues that have not been raised as below:

1) How seriously should one take author’s view considering apparent conflict of interest that author seems to be having by virtue of being someone who has material interests at stake in system/status quo (who is at the same time dispensing suggestions to improve the same system).

2) How much of “hu ha” created by the book is due to author’s celebrity status and how much by book’s pure intrinsic value? I.e. did theory of “reflexivity” play a part here by making us believe the ideas expressed here are more credible than they are by virtue of us having high predetermined expectations?.

3) How plausible is writer's attempt to equate/link crisis of global capitalism with that of open society being endangered? Aren't they mutually exclusive i.e. can't they exist separately? Isn't China a successful capitalist country yet a closed one politically?