Room with a view
If economists agree on something, the public will almost certainly think differently
ECONOMISTS love to argue. Indeed, since the crisis, it has often seemed they cannot agree on anything, and especially not on important matters like how best to boost a sickly economy or when to trim government borrowing. “Schlock economics” was the judgment bestowed by Robert Lucas, a Nobel prizewinner, on the stimulus proposals of Christina Romer, then Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser. Another Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, labelled a rival view of business cycles “Phlogiston economics”, a reference to a debunked 17th-century theory of chemistry. More soft-spoken economists worry the bickering may carry a reputational cost: the public may simply conclude that solid, fact-based conclusions are beyond economists’ reach.
Such concerns were discussed (politely) at the latest annual meetings of the American Economic Association. Dismal scientists throng together each year (this time in not-so-dismal San Diego) to gossip, test the job market and hear presentations on hundreds of new academic papers. Among them were a handful focused on economists’ image problems. They suggest that economists, in fact, agree on quite a lot but that the public is resolutely unimpressed when they do.
This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline "Room with a view"
More from Finance and economics
The property firm that could break China’s back
If Vanke collapses, so might confidence in the state’s management of the economy
Narendra Modi’s flagship growth scheme is off to a sluggish start
Without improvements, it risks wasting trillions of rupees
Diego Maradona offers central bankers enduring lessons
Recent years ought to have reduced the importance of a skilful feint. They have not