Economists in public

There was a debate on Twitter this morning about how economists can better engage with the public.

Our efforts to do so have not been wholly futile. Granted, economists’ influence on the debate about Brexit and austerity hasn’t been as great as we would like. But on the other hand, Tim Harford and Steve Levitt have gotten a wide public audience – one perhaps more deservedly so than the other, And my attempts to bring proper economics to the albeit niche readership of the Investors Chronicle have not been met with complete derision.

Such episodes show it is possible for economists to gain some influence. What follows are some suggestions as to how or when this can be done.

First, economists cannot hope to challenge beliefs that are part of people’s self-identity. If you tell someone “economics says you’re a twat” you’ll not get a sympathetic hearing even if you are bang right. This helps explain the success of Freakonomics and the failure over Brexit: nobody had strong prior beliefs about whether Sumo wrestlers cheat, but they did about the EU.

In this context, I have it easy at the IC. People might not want to hear they are fools but they do want to know ways of making money, or at least to stop losing it egregiously. I can therefore try to be Keynes’ dentist, offering humble but competent advice without telling them they are fools.

Secondly, try to appeal to facts rather than the consensus. If you say “most economists believe x” you are at best only inviting the question: why might they believe that? And at worst, you’re inviting a sneer at experts.

Instead, tell them hard facts. For example, Chris Giles’ statement that the UK trades 3.3 times as much with Spain as with Australia was a lovely clear way of alerting people to gravity models. And some of my more successful efforts have consisted in pointing out that some types of stock, such as defensives and momentum, do tend to beat the market. Facts aren’t just useful in themselves. They answer the question: what do you know? They get you a hearing. 

Thirdly, be clear about what you know and what you don’t. Claiming to be able to forecast short-term GDP moves when you can’t, or proclaiming a “Great Moderation” when this was temporary luck due to a lack of shocks, have brought economists into disrepute. Equally, if R-squareds are low or correlations are variable, say so. You’ve got to know your circle of competence.

Fourthly, don’t talk down to folk. In the day job, I try to imagine my reader as an intelligent and sceptical non-economist: a professional person or successful businessman. (I’ll concede, though, that I don’t always do this on the blog.) When I write about cognitive biases, for example, I try to not to say “this is why you’re stupid” but rather: “these mistakes have been seen in other people: be on guard against making them yourself.”.

Of course, even if economists could always follow this advice (and I don’t claim to do so myself), they won’t always succeed. It’s difficult to talk to those who won’t listen, and there are few channels through which economists can talk even to those who want to listen. Our media (including the BBC) selects for blowhards rather than sober minds – a problem not confined to economics: how much influence do philosophers or sociologists have on the public discourse?

Economists will always have a tough job in the public sphere. Perhaps, though, there are some ways in which we might make it less tough.

Comments

[Steven Clarke]

Can point 1 overrule point 2?

If there is a fact that undermines a belief that form part of someone's self-identity, should you avoid talking about it?

[e]

The twitter debate you link to presupposes available platforms. And as you say, so few channels.
In my daily life I know lots of twats, and even more who consider me a twat. Actually I think serious, and interesting economists are twats when they seem not to notice our public service broadcasting is not currently interested in allowing them to illuminate – in giving time and space, beyond partisan debate, for the mechanics.
Odd that so much blame remains with a sceptical general public, given the place for non-partisanship was becoming parliament, and the place for 'real robust debate' the TV.

[Graeme]

When a professional academic economist such as Wrong-Lewis or Yates stops making stupid arguments from non-existent authority, they might earn more respect. Just saying that the Treasury models agree with other models is not intelligent. They could look at assumptions and sensitivity analyses, but they don't. They expect people at least as well-educated as them to accept their expertise when they seem not to display any. All of us who have done modelling know that, with more than 2 or 3 variables, you can get any result you wish.

[Zoltan Jorovic]

As I understand it, the point about cognitive bias is that it is inbuilt. You can't avoid it simply by knowing about it. So warning people to watch out for it has little effect.

My second point is in response to Graeme. If you call someone silly names (like "Wrong Lewis") this reflects more on you than on the person you are trying to denigrate. As does describing their argument as "stupid". No doubt you believe you have good reasons for these opinions, but the rest of us don't live inside your head, so all we really see is you using this language and it prompts us to judge you by it.

In many ways, Graeme's response sums up why economics is in the mess it is, and why economists are not respected. It comes across as a set of battling faith-based sects, all convinced of their own unique correctness, none able to explain convincingly why to those outside the group. All the focus is on pointing out why everyone else is wrong, and all the evidence for this is based on theoretical models. Economics has become a religion torn by schism and beset by heresy based on intense but irrational beliefs which appear to offer no useful answers to most of the great problems facing our civilisation.