Greg Mankiw asks: why don’t more economists write for wide audiences? He says it’s because they have little incentive. True. But there’s also little demand for economists in the dead tree industry, for several reasons.
1. Economists deal in statistical inference. Editors don’t understand this. As one asked me recently: “what is an R-squared?” Which one of us was stupider – him or me?
2. Editors like human interest stories. Economists know these can be deceptive. A good example was this thing in the New York Times (reg req). It interviewed low-wage workers who’d benefit from a higher minimum wage. The trouble is, the costs of minimum wages – those workers who’d never get hired – are hidden. Economists can point out this tendency. But editors prefer the visible human interest angle to talk of tendencies.
3. Economists don’t pander to tribal prejudice. Editors do. Take Bryan Caplan. There’d be a big market among Republicans for his defence of inequality. But what if Bryan were to give the same readership his views on immigration? Best avoid this risk, and hire columnists who are just partisan hacks. You know where you stand with them.
4. Economists don’t do simple answers. We know everything has a cost and that evidence is usually ambiguous or missing. No-one wants to read this.
5. Economists don’t generate advertising. Take financial reporting. The fact is that markets are nearly efficient, and that tracker funds out-perform most actively managed funds. No-one will advertise if you only say this truth.
6. Economists can’t write.
7) Economists have this tendency to try and put everything into bulleted reasons so as to provide a logical narrative. Editors prefer paragraphs, useless adjectives and prose.
Posted by: Sunny | May 04, 2006 at 03:34 PM
I now understand why J K Galbraith cannot be considered an an economist.
Posted by: Umbongo | May 04, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Steve Levitt? Tim Hartford?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | May 04, 2006 at 05:14 PM
3) is clearly wrong, unless you think "dorky white guys who did economics degrees" are not a tribe, or alternatively that Bryan Caplan is not a hack.
Posted by: dsquared | May 04, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Swap 1) and 6). With honourable exceptions, obviously.
Posted by: Robert Jubb | May 05, 2006 at 10:14 AM
As I commented over at Mankiw’s, I’m all for this thing about economists not writing for popular audiences. Gives half trained economists (and half trained hacks) like myself an opportunity to make a living.
I’ve been astonished by the reactions of books editors..."Hi, I’d like to do some reviews for you" "What subjects?" "Well, I know a little economics" "Great, we don’t have many people like that".
Posted by: Tim Worstall | May 05, 2006 at 11:28 AM
"Which one of us was stupider – him or me?"
Depends. Did you explain it in a way he could understand? If not, probably you.
Posted by: Phil at work | May 05, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Well I completely disagree - some of my own work...
http://www.careers-scotland.org.uk/careersscotland/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=18357&sID=6766
http://www.careers-scotland.org.uk/careersscotland/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=14526&sID=6779
Written for careers folks...
Some stuff for parents there too.
Of course you might all find this boring. But it was done to take economics to help folks make decisions about their lives...
Posted by: angry_economist | May 07, 2006 at 06:33 PM