Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Popular economics booms as people lose faith in financial pundits
By Robert J. Shiller |
February 9, 2011, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
WE are in the midst of a boom in popular economics: books, articles, blogs, public lectures, all followed closely by the general public.
I recently participated in a panel discussion of this phenomenon at the American Economic Association annual meeting in Denver, Colorado. An apparent paradox emerged from the discussion: the boom in popular economics comes at a time when the general public seems to have lost faith in professional economists, because almost all of us failed to predict, or even warn of, the current economic crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression.
So, why is the public buying more books by professional economists?
The most interesting explanation I heard was that economics has become more interesting, because it no longer seems to be a finished and closed discipline. It is no fun to read a book or article that says that economic forecasting is best left to computer models that you, the general reader, would need a PhD to understand.
And, in truth, the public is right: while there is a somewhat scientific basis for these models, they can go spectacularly wrong. Sometimes we need to turn off autopilot and think for ourselves, and when a crisis occurs, use our best human intellect.
A dialogue
The panelists all said, in one way or another, that popular economics facilitates an exchange between specialized economists and the broader public - a dialogue that has never been more important. After all, most economists did not see this crisis coming in part because they had removed themselves from what real-world people were doing and thinking.
Successful popular economics involves the reader or listener, in some sense, as a collaborator. That, of course, means that economists must be willing to include new and original theories that are not yet received doctrine among professional specialists.
Until recently, many professional economists would be reluctant to write a popular book. Certainly, it would not be viewed favorably in considering a candidate for tenure or a promotion. Since it does not include equations or statistical tables, they would argue, it is not serious work that is worthy of scholarly attention.
Worse than that, at least until recently, a committee evaluating an economist would likely think that writing a popular economics book that does not repeat the received wisdom of the discipline might even be professionally unethical.
Imagine how the medical profession would view one of its members who recommended to the general public some therapy that had not yet passed scrutiny from the appropriate authorities.
In the decades prior to the current financial crisis, economists gradually came to view themselves and their profession in the same way, encouraged by research trends.
Overconfidence
For example, after 1960, when the University of Chicago started creating a Univac computer tape that contained systematic information about millions of stock prices, a great deal of scientific research on the properties of stock prices was taken as confirming the "efficient markets hypothesis."
All trading schemes not based on this hypothesis were labeled as either misguided or outright frauds. Science had triumphed over stock-market punditry - or so it seemed.
The financial crisis delivered a fatal blow to overconfidence in scientific economics. It is not just that the profession didn't forecast the crisis. Their models, taken literally, sometimes suggested that a crisis of this magnitude couldn't happen.
To me, and no doubt to the other panelists, part of the process of pursuing the inexact aspects of economics is speaking honestly to the broader public, looking them in the eye, learning from them, reading the e-mails they send, and then searching one's soul to decide whether one's favored theory is really close to the truth.
(Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. www.project-syndicate.org)
I recently participated in a panel discussion of this phenomenon at the American Economic Association annual meeting in Denver, Colorado. An apparent paradox emerged from the discussion: the boom in popular economics comes at a time when the general public seems to have lost faith in professional economists, because almost all of us failed to predict, or even warn of, the current economic crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression.
So, why is the public buying more books by professional economists?
The most interesting explanation I heard was that economics has become more interesting, because it no longer seems to be a finished and closed discipline. It is no fun to read a book or article that says that economic forecasting is best left to computer models that you, the general reader, would need a PhD to understand.
And, in truth, the public is right: while there is a somewhat scientific basis for these models, they can go spectacularly wrong. Sometimes we need to turn off autopilot and think for ourselves, and when a crisis occurs, use our best human intellect.
A dialogue
The panelists all said, in one way or another, that popular economics facilitates an exchange between specialized economists and the broader public - a dialogue that has never been more important. After all, most economists did not see this crisis coming in part because they had removed themselves from what real-world people were doing and thinking.
Successful popular economics involves the reader or listener, in some sense, as a collaborator. That, of course, means that economists must be willing to include new and original theories that are not yet received doctrine among professional specialists.
Until recently, many professional economists would be reluctant to write a popular book. Certainly, it would not be viewed favorably in considering a candidate for tenure or a promotion. Since it does not include equations or statistical tables, they would argue, it is not serious work that is worthy of scholarly attention.
Worse than that, at least until recently, a committee evaluating an economist would likely think that writing a popular economics book that does not repeat the received wisdom of the discipline might even be professionally unethical.
Imagine how the medical profession would view one of its members who recommended to the general public some therapy that had not yet passed scrutiny from the appropriate authorities.
In the decades prior to the current financial crisis, economists gradually came to view themselves and their profession in the same way, encouraged by research trends.
Overconfidence
For example, after 1960, when the University of Chicago started creating a Univac computer tape that contained systematic information about millions of stock prices, a great deal of scientific research on the properties of stock prices was taken as confirming the "efficient markets hypothesis."
All trading schemes not based on this hypothesis were labeled as either misguided or outright frauds. Science had triumphed over stock-market punditry - or so it seemed.
The financial crisis delivered a fatal blow to overconfidence in scientific economics. It is not just that the profession didn't forecast the crisis. Their models, taken literally, sometimes suggested that a crisis of this magnitude couldn't happen.
To me, and no doubt to the other panelists, part of the process of pursuing the inexact aspects of economics is speaking honestly to the broader public, looking them in the eye, learning from them, reading the e-mails they send, and then searching one's soul to decide whether one's favored theory is really close to the truth.
(Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. www.project-syndicate.org)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
