Tyler Cowen has published a pair of posts on the common mistakes of left-wing economists and right-wing economists. A sample mistake he attributes to left-wing economists:
A willingness to think that one has “done one’s best” in the realm of policy, and to blame subsequent policy failures on Republican implementation, rather than admitting that a policy which cannot be implemented by both political parties is perhaps not a good policy in the first place.
and one he attributes to right-wing economists:
I’m all for Health Savings Accounts, but unless done on a Singaporean scale, and with lots of forced savings, they’re not a health care plan to significantly benefit most Americans. There is less of a coherent health care plan, coming from this side, than one might like to think.
To the list I’d add something I think is a common mistake of economists, generally: commenting on various industries in ignorance of their structure. Too frequently this results of prescriptions that in theory are right but in practice are either wrong or unreachable. In that sense we live in a Bayesian world rather than one of the sort envisioned by the classical economists. The universe of choices at hand is limited by prior choices.
Update
Arnold Kling adds his own parallel observations of the ideological blinders of left-wing and right-wing economists in a terse, unexcerptable post.
Charles Smith has two posts along the same lines – one for conservatives and one for progressives.
All these show the hypocrisy of partisan politics – which is nothing new – I’m just surprised these internal contradictions last as long as they do.
Cowen nailed a few of my prejudices, but not all of them.
Steve
I like Kling’s better as it seems a bit simpler to grasp.
From Cowen,
Clearly he isn’t being a Bayesian here given how often Congress has passed on current Medicare cost control measures. Sure the measures might be in there, but will they be allowed to take effect….that is where the rubber meets the pavement and past experience says, “No.”
What does it say about a “science” if it can be bifurcated into “left-wing” and “right-wing” practitioners?
That it’s practiced by human beings. Every science from anthropology to zoology can. That scientists are dispassionate beings of pure reason is a popular misconception.
The problem with economics isn’t that it has left-wing and right-wing practitioners; it’s the belief that their opinions have relevance to actual real world problems that is considerably more than warranted at the present state of the art.
“That it’s practiced by human beings. Every science from anthropology to zoology can.”
Can what? Divide its practitioners into political camps and then point to those political divisions as influential in the results arrived at?
That’s nonsense on stilts.
“That’s nonsense on stilts.”
No, not really. Paul Ehrlich. Steven Schneider. Just two examples I can think of.
“No, not really. Paul Ehrlich. Steven Schneider. Just two examples I can think of.”
“Every science from anthropology to zoology”
Physics, chemistry, geology — those sciences, too?
Linus Pauling. J. Robert Oppenheimer. Bertrand Russell. Geologists like Frank Holmes negotiated the first oil concessions in the Middle East. Sounds like political activity to me.
I’m surprised that this is in the slightest controversial. I can’t imagine anybody who’s ever sat in on a departmental meeting or heard a description of a departmental meeting who didn’t recognize how political they were. What projects are funded, who prospers, who’s promoted—all decided politically. And where there is politics there are factions.
I recall back in the mists of the distant past when I was in college and grad school the Math Department was notably left-wing while the Astronomy and Chemistry Departments were notably right-wing.
Dave that’s not what I was talking about. I’m not denying that folks in in science have have political beliefs. Let me repeat:
Divide its practitioners into political camps and then point to those political divisions as influential in the results arrived at?
I’m not aware that there is a left-wing physics, or right-wing chemistry, or geology. I know it’s been a while since I studied the philosophy of science, but things can’t have changed that much. Is the Higgs Boson hypothesis left or right-wing? My point was, in economics, the political presuppositions of the practitioners appear to be very important when evaluating their arguments qua economists, else why would Cowen and Kling offer their questions?
Let me see Ehrlich was a biologist, or in a hard science at any rate (as I understand it his work with butterflies is supposedly quite good). Schneider got his degrees in mechanical engineering and physics.
There isn’t a left-wing or right-wing economics either for that matter. What is different are often the starting assumptions. Take for example Krugman and Mankiw, both are Keynesians in a broad sense of the term, but both have rather different policy prescriptions. Is it politics? Kind of, I’d say that it is their overall view of the world that is impacting both their political views of the world and research. Also, there is likely a feedback loop as well. As you learn about something it likely influences your world views. A young Paul Ehrlich might have had rather different views than an older Ehrlich. His study of population obviously influenced his views…so much so that he has advocated positions that should make any real liberal sick to his stomach, IMO.
And since economics tends to be quite a bit more hands on in human affairs than physics these kinds of differences in world views are much more noticeable than in with physics. Which is what we see also with Ehrlich and Schneider. They’ve gotten in to branches of science that have the same kind of impact and as such the political aspect becomes much more apparent.
I’ll also toss in Hans-Peter Durr and Erich Jantsch who are members of the Club of Rome. On the “conservative” side I’d offer Michael Behe and William Dembski. Granted Dembski is a mathematician.