Dani Rodrik argues that much disagreement in economics is between “first-best” economists and “second-best” economists. The former take Mark 1:14-15 as their text, and believe the Kingdom of God is at Hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. The second believe, with Proverbs 16:18 that pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments }
derek 08.05.07 at 5:46 pm
But where are the economists who take Matthew 25:44-45 as their text?
bi 08.05.07 at 6:31 pm
“A third argument is that the government could never get complicated interventions right, so we are better off sticking with simple solutions.”
If you ask me, this looks remarkably like the Genesis 1:1–1:31. The same line of argument as with creationism: we don’t know, therefore we know.
c.l. ball 08.05.07 at 6:54 pm
Disagreement over policy issues, that is.
Interesting that Rodrik links to a Wikipedia entry. I asked a room of diplomatic historians at a panel on historians’ communication with the public how many of them contributed to Wikipedia — not one raised their hand, and a only a few considered Wikipedia a legitimate source.
samuel 08.05.07 at 7:18 pm
Rodrik is spot on.
Robert 08.05.07 at 8:01 pm
My favorite refutations of what Rodrik calls “first-best” do not depend on inperfections in information, principal agent problems, lack of perfect competition, etc. Arguably, some, at least, of these refutations do not depend on General Equilibrium effects.
So I find it hard to conclude that “first-best” economists are not some combination of stupid, incompetent, and dishonest. I appreciate that I am labelling some winners of the “Nobel” prize and other prominent economists.
Insofar as “second-best” economists pretend that “first-best” economists would have a point if only some such inperfection did not arise, they don’t impress me. Here I’m more torn.
It seems odd to me that a Harvard economist writing about “Why economists disagree” doesn’t note that his profession seems to sanction recognized thieves as economists in good standing. I understand that academics are under social pressure not to point out that some of their colleagues are simply dishonest.
John Emerson 08.05.07 at 9:15 pm
What Robert said. Good stuff. He forgot to mention the Nobelists Merton and Scholes, though.
stuart 08.06.07 at 10:38 am
and a only a few considered Wikipedia a legitimate source.
Why would anyone consider Wikipedia a source? On the better articles it will summarise and point to them though. A better question would be how many of those historians have had quotes from their works contributed to Wikipedia (and many of them probably wouldn’t know if they have).
c.l. ball 08.06.07 at 4:57 pm
Someone else had asked whether teachers allowed students to use Wikipedia as a source, like a text or monography in their papers. Only a few said they did.
wood turtle 08.06.07 at 5:08 pm
Your knowledge of the Bible is extraordinary, although I don’t really understand the reference for the second-best economists. What’s the fall and destruction? The first group doesn’t care about destruction-they think that it is creative. Falls probably don’t bother them either, as that is probably called market correction.
Or are you just saying that the first group is prideful and haughty?
You must have had a strong religous background and attended much Vacation Bible School.
Barry 08.06.07 at 7:33 pm
“The first group doesn’t care about destruction-they think that it is creative. Falls probably don’t bother them either, as that is probably called market correction.”
Of course, this is the destruction and/or falls of other people. One of the significant things about being a tenured economics professor is that one is insulated from a sh*tload of the economic turmoil of the past few decades, and the next.
Unless major state university systems started to off-shoring their economics departments, of course. That could cause a lot of turmoil.
Comments on this entry are closed.