When I took economics courses (before the glaciers descended and dinosaurs ruled the earth), it was absolutely, positively not the case that most of my economics profs were either libertarian or cosmopolitan. Most of them were ordinary New Deal Democrats. There may have been a Marxist or two.
In a recent NYT op-ed, quoted at his blog Tyler Cowen tries to make a case that the field of economics tends to attract individuals who are libertarian and cosmopolitan in predisposition. He cites several different economists from different centuries who are, indeed, notably libertarian.
In making this assertion he commits sociology. I believe it is possible to know everything there is to know about economics without knowing anything about the sociology of the field of economics. If for every historical example he gives of a libertarian economist there is a counter-example of another economist who is not a libertarian, what becomes of his thesis? That he does not cite non-libertarian economists does not prove that they did or do not exist. It only suggests confirmation bias. Is Paul Krugman notably libertarian?
I think, contrariwise, that as with the other social sciences economics attracts individuals who are interested in influencing human behavior and by influencing human behavior having an effect on the future. That means that those fields tend to attract progressives. I would be willing to bet a shiny new dime that for every libertarian economist teaching in U. S. institutions of higher education today there are five progressive economists. Maybe more.
I would be willing to bet a shiny new dime that for every libertarian economist teaching in U. S. institutions of higher education today there are five progressive economists. Maybe more.
Agree. And, the same holds true for teachers, journalists, entertainment media — all those social/interactive forces who influence the minds of peoples. We are a nation who now cultivates social progressive ideas from cradle to grave. No wonder this political group now has such an iron grip over this country, which , IMO, is going to be very difficult to modify or break.
I remember, in my introductory econ course college (which for me was just a few years ag0), the professor confronted the ‘all economists are right-wing Republicans’ myth with polling data from somewhere (can’t remember the source, but it was properly cited). Economics professors, as a group, identified as Democrats/voted as Democrats 3:1. So your 5:1 ratio (if you allow the gross fallacy that Democrat = progressive) isn’t too far off. However, out of social sciences, that was by far the highest proportion of Republicans. Ratios increased all the way to ethnography (25 Democrats:1 Republican). The prof noted that given the size of our ethnography department, there was probably one very lonely Republican.
TimH
The latter portion of your above post has staggering numbers. What I noticed in school was little formal debate between liberal and conservative ideologies. It was mainly, this is what is true (liberalism), with nary a word even considering a countering POV. Critical thinking is not promoted, only leftist Indoctrination.
Regarding our health of life under progressivism:
There are soul-searching generalities in this Power Line piece — The Next Crash.
It links into this country’s fiscal overcast that many wake up to everyday, in contemplating the future. When one sees, though, what is happening over in Europe (Cyprus), it only injects greater lingering gloominess into the overall assessment of our unsustainable economy, with the possibility of another crash seeming even more forthcoming and inevitable.
About 25 years ago, a political science professor told our class that a university’s economics program will differ significantly depending on whether it was a part of the business school or the liberal arts school. This professor taught Marxist philosophy, and IIRC his point was that in a school such as ours, an economics major in the business school will focus on micro-economics, and will unlikely be exposed to Marxist economic theories or other social science analysis, which would occur at a university where economics was seen as a social science.
As a matter of personal observation, the business school’s economics professors were by reputation and personal observation supply-siders and Milton Friedman fans. OTOH, it appears that George Mason has its economic program in the social sciences department, though Tyler Cowen does appear to be interested in Marxism from time to time.
re Krugman; IIRC Krugman is fairly mainstream in the surveys on what economists believe. For instance, Krugman believes in the value of free trade and in the principle of comparative advantage. He is opposed to rent controls, and in confirming this, I see he adopted this quote: “Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently.” (Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy)
Here is a list of ten things economists agree on; how many of them could be characterized as libertarian?
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/charts/10_things_economists_believe-44.html
You touch on a good point, TimH. Along with the fallacy that all Democrats are progressives (example: I’m a Democrat but not a progressive) there’s another related fallacy that Republicans are conservatives (or vice versa).
My recollection of the polling data suggests that about one-third of Democrats are progressives and about a third of Republicans are conservatives but both of those numbers are rising as anything but progressive Democrats become independents and anything but conservative Republicans become independents.
There’s a nit I didn’t pick with Tyler’s remarks: he seems to conflate egalitarianism with libertarianism. They most definitely are not the same.
PD,
George Mason University is the home of both alot of public choice economists (or it was) and also a significant number of Austrians.
I think economists are generally more “conservative” of the social sciences (assume preferences are constant), but that does not necessarily translate into Republican.
Regarding the linked list:
One could argue that none of them are “libertarian” in that you can arrive at those positions through straight up neo-classical economic analysis. However, that being said, I think if you found an economist that agreed with all of those, there would be a better chance the economist is libertarian than not, IMO.
Can I ask what “cosmopolitan” means in the context of economics? It used to be code for “Jew.”
Based upon context in his article and post I assume he means some combination of “travelled” and “unprejudiced towards other countries and people”.
“It used to be code for “Jew.†”
“…..paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep..”
Drew:
It’s not paranoia, it’s history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootless_cosmopolitan And my question was not an accusation but curiosity. I’m interested by how words acquire different meanings. It’s an occupational hazard.
It’s also a cocktail, of course. Not a cocktail I would drink, but among a certain set…
Now that you mention it, Michael, I recall that usage from the late 19th, early 20th century. It would probably raise some hackles in an NYT audience. Poor choice of words on Tyler’s part.
Generally, when I drink water, I drink water and when I drink whisky, I drink whisky. About as far as I go with cocktails is about one Old-Fashioned a year and one Mint Julep a year.
@michael, I hope that its not code word for “Jew,” since I’ve used the word before without that intention. The Jewish religion could be considered cosmopolitan concerning the assumption under the Noahide laws of certain universal moral imperatives, but Judaism also incorporates the notion of being a special people apart, so that it is also contains aspects of provincialism.
An example of its use in economics would be to describe British policy, which over a century promoted the interests of London and specifically its interest in global finance, insurance and trade, to the disadvantage of Manchester (industrial cities) and agriculture. In this usage, which I think is Cowen’s, cosmopolitanism is its own form of provincialism, but of a certain slice of the educated and middle to upper middle class, which travels in like circles.
You wear a cool leather Jacket like Nick Gillespie at Reason.
In Russian literature the idea goes back before Stalin’s anti-Jewish campaign. I remember a short story (can’t remember the author’s name) featuring a a character called “Ahasver the Cosmopolite”. Before that the satirists Ilf and Petrov mentioned it in their Zolotoi Telyonok, The Little Golden Calf.
The theme of the “Wandering Jew” goes back to the 13th century, IIRC. Doré re-popularized the idea in a series of engravings in the mid-19th century and somebody-or-other wrote a best-selling novel Le Juif Errant.
Another aspect of the term “cosmopolitan” is that it is used as a pejorative towards non-paleoconservatives–i.e. libertarians who are associated with Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
It really came into the mainstream back during the last election when the Ron Paul newsletter scandal hit. It was widely suspected that the racist elements of Paul’s newsletter were written by Rothbard and/or Rockwell. For support on this many pointed to Rothbard’s attempt to build a coalition with the more dubious right wingers out there (it was dubbed Outreach to the Rednecks). The Rothbard/Rockwell splinter group hit back dubbing their antagonists as cosmopolitan libertarians/libertines.
It is possible that Cowen is not aware of this more recent history of the term, but I doubt it.
I wonder if this is a Russian thing. I’m more familiar with antisemitism in other parts of Europe following the Napoleonic Wars through WWII, which seem to me premised on the opposite of cosmopolitanism. During this period, new countries trying to create a nation state for the first time, created attitudes that were particularly hostile to Jews speaking their own language or maintaining their identity. The zeitgeist involved everybody organizing around a single, new, virtuous, energetic identity.
I’ve read some very good 19th century horror stories from Central Europe which are marred by depictions of stereotypical shopkeepers with exaggerated features practicing alchemy or black arts in the backrooms. Think of the alchemist in Bride of Frankenstein with more eccentric features. They are insular outsiders, not universalists.
In any event, my hypothetical usage of the term “cosmopolitan” was its usage in P.J. Cain & A.G. Hopkin’s “British Imperialism” published in 2001. The Wikipedia entry for “cosmopolitanism” shows its usage is not uncommon.
Correction:
This:
Should read as,
Steve V, I am fully willing to accept the notion that certain right-wingers might be using the term for antisemitic overtones, but just looking through its frequent usage by Cowen in both his own writing and in the academic works he quotes, I think there is a far more common usage among people like Cowen, who self-describes as cosmopolitan. I notice Brade DeLong uses the term a lot, but in one piece discussing libertarianism and Ron Paul he feels obligated to make an aside: “(Note that by “cosmopolitan” I do not mean “Jewish.” I mean cosmopolitan.)”
http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2008/01/virginia-postre.html
I think I’ll persist in my slight protest that Ron Paul’s people don’t get to control common usage of terms until they become too successful to ignore.
“.. Stop! Hey! What’s that sound? everybody look what’s goin’ down….”
When I was in the banking business, Michael, 80% of my co-workers were Jewish. I was a minority. Some of the finest people, the finest times of my life. In fact, a cherished time in my life; great golfing buddies by the way.
It spawned one of the greatest lines I’ve ever heard, and which I use for effect to this day – courtesy of our Chief Credit Officer; last name Lewin…..”I’m not doing this damned deal because if it doesn’t work I’m not going to have 12 Jewish lawyers around a table trying to eat my face off.”
Only half in jest. I was 30. You don’t forget this shit……
It looks to me, based on what you all are saying, and reading the original piece, that this is just a slightly unusual use of the word “cosmopolitan.” I approve — not that it’s my business to vett word choices. I had thought maybe it was a term of art within economics.
I hate when words are imprisoned by circumstance, redefined in such a way that we lose their use altogether. “Niggardly” being a good example. “Gay” being another. “Holocaust” reduced to a specific historical reference, costing us the use of the word in other contexts. “Liberal” was in jail for a while but seems to have escaped.
@michael, I think “niggardly” is a fine word, but I won’t use it anymore since it is more likely to serve to distract than communicate.
I think Cowen reads a lot of history. The other usage that comes to mind is that of Historian Gordon Woods describes the Founding Fathers as the most cosmopolitan of any in American history. That is, they were very well-educated in what we would describe as the liberal arts, they were outwardly very successful in their economic endeavors, and they shared the same Whig ideology, of Locke, Smith and Blackstone and many members of the House of Commons. I’m not sure what word he could use to replace it since “elites” overlooks the reality that many of the elites were torries or loyalists. “Wealth” is insufficient in that one could be rich as sin, particularly if you had to work in your business 24/7, and could not be a member of this socio-economic group since you lacked the leisure and outward public spirit required.
Lincoln is usually described as being affected by his trips to New Orleans to accept a more “cosmopolitan” world view. The term at the time would have been “he’d seen the elephant,” which later came to refer to one who saw death in war. But at the time it meant he saw goods from all over the world, he saw new technologies (the first train), and he saw a very different kind of society with mixed races and different languages.
For what it’s worth, the question of economists’ voting preferences has been studied, by researchers at Cowen’s university no less. The D:R ratio was found to be about 2.5:1.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf
Only 7 out of 264 have mostly voted libertarian. Though of course many more are probably libertarian-leaning but support one party or the other for tactical reasons.
On the other hand, the NY Fed found a few years back that studying economics tends to shift folks’ views rightward.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html
As I said in an earlier comment in this thread, I think he’s conflating egalitarian with libertarian.
Yes – if it wasn’t clear, I agree with you! Economists may seem very libertarian relative to other academics, but they’re not especially so on the whole. I just think the data is interesting (and am somewhat amused that it exists at all).
On the other hand: I think the % of Republicans who self-identify as conservative is closer to two-thirds, not one. Maybe that’s what you intended to write to Tim, above.