Students Leaving Politics Out of Economics: freakonomics now mainstream

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Students Are Leaving the Politics Out of Economics
By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: January 27, 2006


Taking as a model the research techniques that Steven D. Levitt displays in his best-selling book, "Freakonomics," graduate students in economics are focusing on small insights about the economy rather than broad theories that explain how the overall system works. In doing so, they are withdrawing in effect from political debate.

The broad-brush approach was a defining characteristic of the economists who were shaped by the Depression. The younger generation has tried to shun prescriptions that seek to cure the economy's ills. Instead, they cast economics as a scientific inquiry, using mathematical models, for example, to explore the economy without becoming advocates for one solution or another.

Mathematical modeling tries to determine such things as rates of economic growth by plugging into computer models assumptions about inflation, hiring and the like. It is still the thrust of graduate training, but the students themselves are pushing for training in another form of exploration — empirical research like that of Mr. Levitt, which relies on statistical evidence.

Mr. Levitt, a 38-year-old professor at the University of Chicago, analyzes data that seem to explain behavior — why the crime rate has declined, for example — and that is what a growing number of graduate students in economics want to do, according to a poll of 230 of them at seven prestigious universities.

"They don't see themselves as having political persuasions," said David Colander, an economic historian at Middlebury College, who conducted the poll and a similar one in 1987. "They see themselves as doing the best analytical-statistical work that can be done, better than in sociology and other social sciences. They are telling you what the options are, but not which option to choose."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/business/27econ.html

[ewoden]

1. All models are wrong, but some are useful

[cdsilv]

4. Lies, damn lies and statistics.....

...nonetheless, past statistical history does tell us about economic cycles.

Many ignore the effect that political decisions have on economics.

It is a complex phenomena that merits investigation, however, like higher level continuous math it is subject to what many call 'mental masturbation', that is
math for math's sake.

I guess we really are subject to the axiom that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it.

I fear that we are repeating the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Germany, except that it is now happening in the USA.

How can we let this happen?

Apathy, and (in my case) wanting to 'stay beneath the radar', in order to protect my kids and keep my job.

But, the situation is getting too dire.

We have to act. I don't know how, but we have to do something......

I just hope that my kids won't suffer for my decision to go 'above the radar'.

I cannot just stand by while our Democratic Republic is turned into a dictatorship.

I have to act. Haven't decided how, but I have pledged to contribute to whoever starts the filibuster. And I will.

[Nevernose]

2. I really enjoyed "Freakonomics." At first.

And then I finished the book. I was willing to ignore the chapter "proving" that the educational system and "teachers" were corrupt. I hear that a lot, and am used to the slander. However, as the book wore on and on, I realized that what was purporting to be a neutral, objective perspective was just masquerading as a right-wing shill. There were many references to being non-partisan and not-political, but it sure didn't feel that way to me.

I still have hopes for economics in general and the author in particular. However, "Freakonomics," even the good parts, suffer from the same flaw as Intelligent Design: it takes a position and tries to find facts that fit that positionm, rather than make a hypothesis and try and prove it. It's yet another example as to why economics is a "social" science rather than a "hard" science.

To give Levitt his due, I think that much of "Freakonomics" is perfectly valid, and is definitely the future for economics. But it is, after all, a social science. I could use the same New York Times touted "emprical methods" and "rely on statistical method" to prove that most Northeners were anti-Black and pro-Slavery, and that in point of fact it was Jefferson Davis who first had a real plan to free the slaves. It might even be accurate. It would not, however, change the fact that the Civil War was more about slavery than anything else, and that, although I love the South, the right side won in that particular (and armed) debate.

In short, regarding "Freakonomics," I love the guy's mode of transportation. I'm just not sure of his destination.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Good post, Nevernose. nt