Economists have a chip on their shoulder, or at least I do. Nobody argues gravity with a physicist, or covalent bonding with a chemist, but they do argue supply and demand with an economist. Nobody ever asks if a physicist or a chemist is biased, but people make these claims all the time about economists. Like Rodney Dangerfield, economists, "don't get no respect."
In his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Bryan Caplan describes two common biases that many think economists possess. They are self-serving bias and ideological bias.
Self-serving bias is based on a literature that suggests that people form beliefs that are comfortable and support their financial interests. As an expression of self-serving bias, Lincoln said of slaveholder,
The effect on the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrong in it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow, for holding that species of property, and hence he has to struggle within himself and sets about arguing himself into the belief that Slavery is right. The property influences his mind. [1]
The argument implies that economists are on average well-to-do, and have job security and therefore support policies that help the rich through markets. Caplan's statistical analysis suggests that self-serving bias does not explain economists' views. If economists had the same level of income and job security as the average person, their opinion on policy would still mirror those of other economists.
Ideological bias suggests that economists beliefs were shaped by their free market mentors. If Republicans are more conservative than Democrats, implying that they are more likely to support free market policies, the accusation does not fit. Economists are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern (How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities? Survey Evidence from Six Fields) surveyed six social science disciplines. The overall response rate of 30.9% and the small number of academic economists responding (96) suggests that results should be interpreted with caution. Academic economists were defined as those working at four year colleges or above. They found that three times as many economists vote regularly for Democrats as compared to Republicans.
The Economist.com (Examining the candidates) surveyed 683 research economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and found similar results to Klein and Stern.
A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.
Their nonscientific results find that Democrats outnumber Republicans 4.6 to 1, an even stronger result.
Caplan compares the political beliefs and policy views of 250 Ph.D. economists and concludes,
Compared to the general public, the typical economist is left of center. Furthermore, contrary to critics of the economics profession, economists do not reliably hold right-wing positions. They accept a mix of 'far right' and 'far left' views.
Economists may have biases, but they are not self-serving bias or ideological bias as often claimed.
[1] Miller, William Lee. Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography, Alfred A. Knopf, New York , 2002, page 388.
Posts
Well, it's easier for someone to argue with an economist because it's easier for a person to convince himself that he has as much knowledge as an economist than it is for a person to convince himself that he knows as much as a physicist or a chemist.
ReplyDeleteDr. Wilson,
ReplyDeleteThere's no time like the present to "prove" the theory that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Being a blue-leaner in a red state, I have spent the better part of the past year trying to figure out how average working class people can still have such far-right political views. It seems that the more sense the Democrats make, the harder the Republicans try to hold on to their often archaic and outdated ideals. I guess it's the same in other states, but it seems so much more prevalent here. Self-serving bias is the only explanation I can come up with.
Your student,
Karen Lowrey
Many choose to argue with economists simply because of the thought that everyone participates in the economy. In meaning, everyone believes to be correct on their standpoints in arguements with economists.
ReplyDelete-Hunter Hezmall (microeconomics)
hh0300006@mclennan.edu
I agree that economists are the experts and thus, hold a more positive analysis which is much better. They tell the world how it really is instead of trying to force different values. Politicians hold a more self-serving bias and economists, I find to be more self-less and more advising. I find it surprsing that there are so many more liberal economists as opposed to coservative, who belive in free market. We don't want to restrain free market too heavily; however, Wall Street CEOs are a different story.
ReplyDeleteYour student, Brazelton Mann.
Studying the economy is a science and indeed a much different one than a science such as biology. Economists must deal with people and government rather than test tubes and beakers and in dealing with people comes the challenge of impartial study without bias. Many non-economists would label an economist bias if their economic outcomes or policy does not mix well with that persons belief or understanding of their surroundings. Economists have a tough profession because almost nothing concrete is laid out before them. They must make educated guesses and expert analysis in their line of work constantly such as determining the elasticity of a demand curve for a certain market.
ReplyDelete--Jordan Finstad
I think that the reason a lot of people argue against economists is that sometimes economists views affect them in ways that are not to their liking. Though I do agree that economists are the experts and tell it how it is, that is not always what people want to hear and can sometimes lead to arguments. When it comes to science, scientists answer from concrete results and therefore it is not argued much against since it is backed up by facts instead of theories, and also I don't think the average american knows or cares too much about science subjects. However, since the economy deals with everyone as a whole, opinions from economists effect everyone. Therefore if an economists spits out a solution which could help the economy but aggrivate alot of people while doing it, an economist could catch alot of grief.
ReplyDelete-Christie Grones
As we studied in chapter one, we find that many people are likely to argue with economists conclusions due to the uncontrolled environments economists are forced to use to conduct their experiments.
ReplyDeleteHaving so many uncontrolled variables in an experiment, How can economists really say "This is caused because of that". Yet in many ocations we find that the conclusions of economists are correct.
Why then argue with someone who is most often correct, than incorrect? Perhaps it is because we like to have certainty in a world that offers none.
Cesar Rodriguez-Bautista
Most people become experts in a particular field whether requiring brain or brawn. Economists are like the supervisor of hive they are in place to increase productivity without increasing the cost of production. As an outsider I would have argued because I feel that doing something to fix this economic crisis were in is better than the job being done now. But as i further my education in economics I learn it is best to leave the economics to the experts.
ReplyDeleteArguing with an economist is, at times, understandable. Physicist and chemists deal with numbers and what is often considered hard facts, economists, on the other hand, use possible situations, a lot of it is hypothetical. An economist must freeze prices to 'accurately' come up with a result, they also have to make assumptions about how the public will reacte, this can never be done with one hundred percent accuracy.
ReplyDeletePeggy Freeman
I have always thought that marjority of the economist said what the government wanted them to say. After reading this it puts a differnet outlook on my thoughts. It is werid that majority of the economist are democrates. Since I have always believed that democrates are for the people I would not believe that economist would be for the people.
ReplyDeleteDr. Wilson
ReplyDeleteEconomics as a science is most likely not well understood by the common man. Most anyone has heard of supply and demand and hold a vague understanding of it. However, what they do not understand are concepts such as market equilibrium and the elasticity of demand. This lack of understanding allows them to believe that economics is just a normative ideology that is open for debate, and not a science proven with econometric models and empirical data. I believe laypersons often think that any subject revolving around the allocation of scarce resources is prone to contain sets of self-serving biases. Taking your microeconomics class has so far given me a much better understanding of the economic world and I now hold a new respect towards economists I did not have before.
Your student,
Mark Balko
So many people in our society today relate the science of Economics directly with power hungry politicians and greedy Wall Street CEO’s. Speculation of Economists is common for the world population en masse; distrust in economic systems spreads like gossip through the world. Economic systems are so deeply rooted in politics that some will intentionally fabricate so called “truths” in order to spread their agendas. Economists as beneficial or detrimental tools in the political game have countless enemies on all fronts and sides, enemies that will stop at nothing to discredit their work.
ReplyDeleteYour Student,
Andrew Brown