Good economists make bad politicians. The Economist reminds us of this, pointing out that Larry Lindsey, John Taylor and Greg Mankiw have all had unsuccessful careers in Washington. And this is not to mention the obvious.
Now, whatever else explains their failure, it’s certainly not a lack of intelligence. Instead, could it be that there are systematic causes of economists' failures in politics? Here’s a few possible reasons why.
1. Economics is the study of trade-offs, of costs. It was, therefore, wholly natural for Larry Lindsey to discuss the costs of the Iraq war, and to be surprised when he attracted opprobrium: whoever thought wars were cheap? Politicians, of course, hate the idea of trade-offs and costs.
2. Economists love counter-intuitive ideas. The two most successful theories in economics are probably comparative advantage and the invisible hand – things that don’t strike the layman as obvious. This leads to us stressing paradoxical notions – like the notion that outsourcing can be a good thing. Good politicians, by contrast, prefer sound-bites that corroborate the public’s prejudices.
3. Economists are like photographers - we love simple models. In particular, ever since Friedman’s Methodology of Positive Economics, we’ve loved models that yield bold, controversial but testable predictions. Hence, perhaps, Larry Summers’ remarks (which strike me as one of the most intelligent and humane speeches to have been made by someone of such distinction.)
4. Economists start from assumptions – or better still axioms – and see where they lead; another of our ideals is the Arrow-Hahn-Debreu general equilibrium model. Sometimes, though, they can lead to trouble. Compare this approach with that of lawyers, who start from conclusions – “my client is innocent” – and find arguments that will get there. Which profession is best-equipped for a political career?
5. Economists have a simple, brutal view of human nature – everyone’s rational (though not knowledgeable) and out for themselves. This makes us comfortable with conflict and argument, and uncomfortable about building alliances.
The bottom line here is that Harvey Mansfield says: “There is almost no such thing as a suave economist.” Indeed, what the great Fred Elliot said about his profession applies equally to economists: “there’s no romance in butchery.” Hence economists’ poor record in politics.
In short, economists’ political failure is, perhaps, connected with the fact that economics is the dismal science” – crude, cold, unromantic.
Should we regret this? No. Just remember where the phrase “dismal science” comes from.
Another bit of Mansfield that seems appropriate here: "Studying methodology is like practicing seduction on an empty couch."
Posted by: Blimpish | March 20, 2005 at 11:25 PM
Nice posting - I think you've pretty much nailed it.
I think another thing that may make the typical economist ill suited for politics is that the discipline lends itself to those with comparative advantages in the non-interpersonal area. Since we tend to invest in the areas where we have comparative advantages, economists generally (but not always) are a bit lacking in the backslapping/smalltalk/schmoozing skills so vital to political success. It's like the old joke (fill in many quant-heavy academic disciplines in place of economist:
Q: How can you tell you're with an extroverted economist?
A: He looks at YOUR shoes when he talks to you.
The Unknown Professor
http://financialrounds.blogspot.com
Posted by: The Unknown Professor | March 21, 2005 at 02:12 PM
Would you class Keynes as a good economist, a bad politician, or what?
Posted by: dearieme | March 21, 2005 at 05:02 PM