Stumbling and Mumbling argues good economists make bad politicians. His bottom line is, quoting Harvey Mansfield: “There is almost no such thing as a suave economist.” ...Hence economists’ poor record in politics. Chris gives five possible reasons why:
1. Economics is the study of trade-offs, of costs. ...Politicians, of course, hate the idea of trade-offs and costs.
2. Economists love counter-intuitive ideas. ...This leads to us stressing paradoxical notions – like the notion that outsourcing can be a good thing. Good politicians, by contrast, prefer sound-bites that corroborate the public’s prejudices.
3. Economists are like photographers - we love simple models. In particular ...we’ve loved models that yield bold, controversial but testable predictions.
4. Economists start from assumptions – or better still axioms – and see where they lead. ...Sometimes, though, they can lead to trouble.
5. Economists have a simple, brutal view of human nature – everyone’s rational (though not knowledgeable) and out for themselves. This makes us comfortable with conflict and argument, and uncomfortable about building alliances.
His points are valid. Most economists are by nature spectical, analytical and counter-intuitive. We are much more comfortable being critics than cheerleaders. That makes it difficult to advocate second-best solutions or simple minded policies. But while economists may not be natural politicians (with some notable exceptions), they are a vital part of any team of political advisers.
When everyone else is telling the Prime Minister his latest brainwave is brilliant, someone has to point out the likely costs, examine the evidence base and - where appropriate - give reasons for caution or propose better alternatives. Economists are well suited by both temperament and training to that role. It will never make us popular, but it does contribute to the greater good.
Also, it's important to think at the changing role of "the economist" in the c20th. Initially, we were Political Economists, entitles to our opinions, offering analysis to the public. We were students - and dare I say - humble.
The advent of Keynesianism created a new role for the economist: saviour. Suddenly we had a science just like Physics, and offered all the solutions to micro inefficiency and macro instability. What role for the student, crying out "hold on, this doesn't make sense?". There is no role for a student, when the state is playing the game. The money goes to those with the best solutions, and "stay out of it" isn't going to get you hired.
Increasingly, however, we know realise that the state is best as referee, not as player. That so, the dominant strategy for economist is as student, not saviour.
The c20th was an unfortunate episode in the Fatal Conceit.
That's all.
Posted by: AJE | Saturday, March 26, 2005 at 03:53 PM
hi
Posted by: enis | Tuesday, August 08, 2006 at 05:55 PM