« Northern Rock has been nationalized | Main | A simple ethical conundrum »
What I really think of the new popular economics books
I recently published an article in the Swiss arts magazine Du on the wave of popular economics books. Yes I am an economist but I am also interested in the implicit philosophies and theologies of these books. My piece is in German and not on-line but here are a few bits from it.
About Freakonomics I wrote:
The implicit theology of Freakonomics is that of original sin. The book is full of stories of liars: “people lie, data don’t” can be taken as the book’s motto...
Levitt and Dubner seek to puncture naïve optimism. It is the reader who needs reforming, and the proposal is to drive naivete out of our systems. We must recognize original sin (recall the bite into the apple on the book’s cover), give up on utopian dreams, and stick to what can be proven by science. That means an acceptance of ongoing human depravity, but Freakonomics goes further. It preemptively protects us against encountering that depravity and lying in our own lives. We have been warned, and we need no longer fear disappointment from our encounters with the real world.
It should come as no surprise that Dubner – the one who actually wrote the book – also penned an entire book about his personal theology. Dubner is ethnically Jewish but his parents had converted to Catholicism and raised him as a Catholic. Over the course of his life he rediscovered his Jewish heritage and religion and chronicled that process in his fascinating Choosing My Religion: A Memoir of a Family Beyond Belief. It is theology, Dubner’s main obsession, which gave him the background to write a popular economics book that touched so many Americans.
And how about Tim Harford?
Harford’s voice is always gentle, sometimes cynical, and usually whimsical and reassuring in his language. He points to the ironies of life. He is hardly one to deny that people lie, but such peccadilloes are a sideshow rather than the center of his moral universe. We still can make our way in the world and carve out a small piece of personal happiness and perhaps a small bit of virtue as well. Harford often reminds us that hedonism has its place in human affairs; his latest book opens with a discussion of the prospect of “a rational [you-know-what].”
In other words, Harford serves up British secularism rather than American original sin. Harford’s “Dear Economist” column...views human foibles as inevitable yet endearing; in Harford’s world no judgment is ever too harsh or too one-sided.
As an economist, Harford seems more interested in “invisible hand mechanisms” than are Dubner and Levitt. Freakonomics informs us that what appears to be ordinary is in fact full of corruption. Harford’s Undercover Economist is keener to show that the apparently corrupt can, at the macro level, lead to entirely acceptable and indeed sometimes humane results.
There is much more, here is one final bit:
Popular economics books reveal their true colors most clearly when they talk about sex. In Freakonomics sex is not holy but rather sex and reproduction lead to the birth of criminals...For Harford sex is a slightly naughty pleasure, and a pleasure to be mocked, but at least it is a real pleasure; this American reviewer again cannot help seeing the British tinge of his work.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 19, 2008 at 07:20 AM in Books, Economics, Religion | Permalink
Comments
One quibble with your analysis:
The apple on the front of the Freakonomics cover has not been bitten but sliced open to reveal the pulp of an orange. I'd like to believe your Adam & Eve story, but the theory just doesn't fit the data.
Posted by: Jeff at Feb 19, 2008 3:34:24 AM
That's far deeper than I had looked in either, and a good read on the tone of each. It's been interesting to see the seemingly inevitable backlash against popularising econ (similar dynamics show up in sociology, psychology, finance... probably everywhere). At some point these authors have to find a way to do justice to the theory without getting so wonkish that the layman gets lost and gives up. Hitting the right balance for the layman is a challenge. Thomas Schelling did this pretty well, but certainly not to the satisfaction of all.
It's a bit disconcerting to see some of the backlash, though, as it treats these books in much the same way scholars might treat papers in a peer-reviewed journal. Though not myself educated as an economist, I imagine most economists choose that path because they believe economics is a particularly good way to make sense of the world. The effect of these bestsellers is to provoke thought in that direction and perhaps to stimulate further study that delves into the finer points of the field. I would hope this is a stunningly obvious point, but bestsellers in airport bookstores are doing a very different thing than textbooks and peer-reviewed journals. There is obviously a margin for error when the layman begins making associations from the bestsellers, but there are also new adherents bringing curiosity and fresh eyes to the field. Coming from a fairly marginal field myself, I'd love to see a rock star or two in our midst, especially one that can croon about sex the way Harford does.
Posted by: J.Lo at Feb 19, 2008 3:38:27 AM
Indeed, J. Lo - I found some criticism of Freakonomics and the Undercover Economist (I have not yet read The Logic of Life) bemusing, considering that hardly any physicist would criticise Stephen Hawking for simplifying physics in A Brief History of Time. Of course Freakonomics used somewhat simplified statistical models, and of course the Undercover Economist retread basic economic principles - that was kind of the point.
Posted by: johnleemk at Feb 19, 2008 5:13:32 AM
Surprisingly few google results for invisible hand is secularized providence.
Posted by: bjk at Feb 19, 2008 7:12:11 AM
It seems like a real stretch to take the abortion/crime chapter in Freakonomics as being a chapter about sex, so that you can then contrast it to Harford's treatment of sex.
I think it's pretty clear that study was only related to sex in the most superficial and tangential way.
Posted by: Julia G at Feb 19, 2008 8:26:02 AM
It seems like a real stretch to take the abortion/crime chapter in Freakonomics as being a chapter about sex, so that you can then contrast it to Harford's treatment of sex.
I think it's pretty clear that study was only related to sex in the most superficial and tangential way.
Posted by: Julia G at Feb 19, 2008 8:26:37 AM
Tyler's comparison btw economics and religion is fascinating. Though I agree with economists that scarcity and self-interest explain most situations, how much of our basic beliefs are akin to dogma in religion. Harford's recent book is a case in point: if all human actions can be described as rational, how can we ever falsify the rational actor model?
P.S.: I once read an excellent book by Richard Nelson titled "Economics as Religion" that I strongly recommend to the readers of MR
Posted by: enrique at Feb 19, 2008 8:39:43 AM
Everything reminded Friedman of the money supply, everything reminds Solow of sex, and everything apparently reminds enrique of problems with Harford's definition of rationality.
Posted by: Jeff at Feb 19, 2008 9:35:20 AM
I would agree that incentives and scarcity seem to explain almost everything, or at least are a fun to way to view everything. Which author does it the best? meaning - which economist dumbs down the dismal social science enough for the layman to understand in the most interesting and believable manner?
Posted by: Meds at Feb 19, 2008 10:35:37 AM
I wonder how much of Frank Knight Tyler has read. When he was President of the AEA he entitled his Presidential addresses 'sermons' It is not a surprise to me the Knight's focus on sin is still alive and well in Chicago.
Interesting paper about Knight.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/icr/wpicer/07-2000.html
Posted by: Sam at Feb 19, 2008 10:53:04 AM
It seems a stretch to say that the section on how Abortion, medical act condemned by most of the mainline American religions, is good because it causes less crime informed by American religious culture.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Jew's don't believe in original sin.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Feb 19, 2008 11:15:29 AM
Sorry, my first sentence didn't make much sense. It should have read:
It seems a stretch to say that Dubner's section on how Abortion is better than it seems because it causes less crime, is informed by American religious culture when abortion is a medical procedure that is condemned by most of the mainline American religions.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Feb 19, 2008 11:18:50 AM
Meds, I'm not sure "dumbing down" and making understandable are the same thing. In fact, I am certain they're not. Can you understand having the flu without knowing how a virus invades your cells? Probably. One thing I like about these books and this blog are that the specialists don't withhold knowledge with the belief that the unwashed masses are incapable of understanding. Even with a shallow understanding, I suspect the layman is better off understanding something of economics rather than nothing at all.
Posted by: J.Lo at Feb 19, 2008 11:27:14 AM
I like this approach to analyzing non-fiction - in terms of the persona of the writer.
It is important, and makes the difference between books that you read and find OK, and books that stay with you and you re-read.
Both Freakonomics and Undercover economist were enjoyable at the time I read them, but neither stayed with me or made me want to go back and be in the company of the authors.
In contrast is the work of Thomas Sowell, for example, where I feel myself in the presence of someone who is not only super-intelligent but wise and decent - I keep going back and re-reading Sowell, and like to spend time with that authorial voice.
Posted by: BGC at Feb 19, 2008 11:49:42 AM
I wasn't saying that "dumbing down" was a bad thing at all. In fact, I love how it has been done. I have become such a junkie for these books over the last 4 years (I'm a newbie). I have had some terrible Econ professors where they could not bring the content to life like these books do so well.
Good teachers need to make the subject matter (I don't care what it happens to be) interesting and understandable. That sometimes means getting rid of fancy terminology (due to overblown egos/narcissism/inability to teach) and the calculus (why I enjoy Levitt). In some cases the lousy professor's view of "dumbing down" and making something "understandable" could be substituted.
Oops, I said "substituted," Econ 101 time: If the price of saying "dumbing down" increases then demand for "understandable" increases. Therefore, I will use "understandable" in the future, unless of course there is a change in expectations.
I told you I was a junkie for "understandable" books explaining the basic economic principles.
Posted by: Meds at Feb 19, 2008 12:50:54 PM
I suppose it is inevitable that if you write a book about what are normally considered moral problems, then the traditional guardians of such will file you next to the theologians who came to conclusions closest to yours.
The same game can be played with physics, in particular cosmology, where each theory of time beginning once in a fireball / many times in series / in parallel can be found in some mystic's prior thinking.
Posted by: improbable at Feb 19, 2008 1:09:33 PM
Freakonomics informs us that what appears to be ordinary is in fact full of corruption.
Is economics the preferable way to convey the theological lessons that Tyler sees within Freakonomics? Are culturally rooted parables and epics, or passionately held religious beliefs, plain old fiction, or philosophy and reflection more intuitive and easier to follow teachers?
On this narrow question, the defenders of economics-as-common-sense teacher would claim that it is subject to the scientific method, etc. But, another way of looking at the scientific method is that it is a description of how people constantly change their minds. Mere common sense, or dabbling among great writers would have told you that monetary incentives lead to cheating, that cloistered athletes are inclined to fixing, etc. The mature religions and philosophies have endured and teach by experience, by million of individuals making use or disposing of various facets. In comparison, economics is teenage clanging of jargony, wonky noise; it is a juvenile arguing for its place among adults to answer teh Questions of Life.
All this reminds me of my favorite movie:
KURTZ: Are my methods unsound?"
WILLARD:" I don't see any method at all, sir."
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Feb 19, 2008 2:52:09 PM
Tyler,
Any chance you could post the full article, in translation, somewhere? Would like to read the rest. Many thanks.
Posted by: Tim Gray at Feb 20, 2008 12:32:23 PM
never judge a book by its cover. who cares if people are inherently good or sinful. in the practical world, their actions alone are of importance.
Posted by: hattryx at Feb 20, 2008 1:42:22 PM
There is certainly a difference of tone.
Harford seems rather diffident, conscious of the silliness of economics, while the Freaks are first class boasters.
Posted by: james c at Feb 22, 2008 10:48:41 AM
No one seems to have noticed that Levitt is a Mormon, which probably informs his view of behavior. This seems much more germane than Dubner's Judaism.
BGC... excellent comment regarding Sowell. Couldn't have phrased it better.
Sowell is a product of Chicago and Friedman's micro seminar in particular.
Sam's broadside at Chicago was gratuitous. Levitt is one of a hundred or so economists in the econ dept and B-school there. As if Gary Becker, e.g., is a Puritan.
No, it's more reasonable to take as representative of Chicago Gene Fama's advice to PhD candidate Cliff Asness regarding a research proposal that attempted to poke a hole in the eff mkts hypothesis and led to the discovery that value stocks outperform growth stocks by more than they should:
"Go where the data lead you."
If only all economists operated on that principle.
Posted by: Bill at Feb 23, 2008 10:34:05 AM
Sowell is great because he hasn't "popularized" economics, yet he has made it accessible to anyone with his limpidness. It's a shame that his writing is so bent to the right that some cannot take seriously his arguments (I read Economic Facts and Fallacies and I only came out of it with two very slight criticisms of his logic) let alone his more moderate arguments. And he has been given the same curse as Krugman in that his columns are so contrasted from his academic works that you'd imagine a case of schizophrenia-- one astute academic, one nauseating pundit.
But really, what economist would ever say that a cultural trend that influences buyer preferences is bad? The popularization of economics is wonderful. And I really enjoy them. Hopefully, teaching econ in high school will be a safety net for when my dream of having a career in music comes crashing down. And I'd really love to base a lot of my lessons and explanations off of sections of these easy-to-understand books.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Feb 24, 2008 10:33:04 PM
