Il Buono
First, the good points. Russ Roberts has a knack for asking good questions, particularly questions about broad, philosophical issues. In many ways, the most important questions the government is wrestling with right now look a lot more like "Do we want to be more like France with a bigger role for government, or less like France?" and less like "Which paradigm is the 'right' way to think about the boom and the bust?"
Roberts also has a sharp wit, enabling him to illustrate the problems he sees with his opposition in enlightening ways.
The defenders of modern macroeconomics argue that if we just study the economy long enough, we'll soon be able to model it accurately and design better policy. Soon. That reminds me of the permanent sign in the bar: Free Beer Tomorrow.Finally, Roberts really seems to understand why economics, and particularly macroeconomics, is so difficult.
If economics is a science, it is more like biology than physics. Biologists try to understand the relationships in a complex system. That's hard enough. But they can't tell you what will happen with any precision to the population of a particular species of frog if rainfall goes up this year in a particular rain forest. They might not even be able to count the number of frogs right now with any exactness.
We have the same problems in economics. The economy is a complex system, our data are imperfect and our models inevitably fail to account for all the interactions.I often prefer to class epidemiology, climatology, and macroeconomics together. All three study highly complex systems, which we don't even come close to fully understanding, and do so using whatever observations of the system we manage to get. Compared to these disciplines, progress in physics, chemistry, engineering, and even psychology is a walk in the park (and believe me, it's not).
Il Brutto
When faced with the issues and weaknesses discussed above, Roberts concludes that "we should expect less of economists." In other words, getting useful answers is hard, so maybe we shouldn't try. Now, biology and medical science have made precious little real progress against cancer in the last thirty years or so, but I doubt Roberts would argue we should expect less from cancer researchers. Why he feels comfortable taking such an odd position toward others in his discipline I am not really sure.
Roberts reaches this conclusion after stating that he no longer believes in the value of macroeconomic statistical studies.
I've started asking economists if they can name a study that applied sophisticated econometrics to a controversial policy issue where the study was so well done that one side's proponents had to admit they were wrong. I don't know of any.Of course, if Roberts can name a particular study, any study, that forced one side of a controversial policy issue to admit they were wrong, then I would consider this challenge meaningful. But of course he won't be able to, any more than I could meet his challenge. It doesn't work that way. Changing people's opinions and beliefs, especially when the validity of their life's work (and possibly their income) may be on the line, doesn't come suddenly, no matter how good the work.
Il Cattivo
My main complaint, however, is not that Roberts exaggerates his conclusions. It's an article for a newspaper, not an academic journal; reaching a broader argument with the essence of one's conclusions requires a degree of drama, and while I find it kind of annoying at times, it's not unreasonable.
However, some of Roberts comments are not designed so much to get his message across as they are to solidify his position of superiority relative to those who disagree with him.
When the debate is over $2 trillion in additional government spending vs. zero, we've stopped being scientists and become philosophers.On its own, the above comment could seem innocuous enough; after all, Roberts could be arguing that economics should be more like philosophy. But this is difficult to reconcile with previous comments like the following:
After all, most sciences make progress.So while Roberts seems to be in favor of economists admitting to being like un-scientific philosophy, he doesn't portray this fact positively. After all, his conclusion is that we shouldn't expect so much from such an un-scientific discipline.
Roberts seems pretty comfortable slighting alternative methods of uncovering truth. He relates Ed Leamer's description of "faith-based" econometrics, because faith is the opposite of science. He offers other lines designed to subtly accuse economists in general, and particularly macroeconomists, of self-importance and hypocricy:
It makes you wonder why people call it the Nobel Prize in Economic Science.
If economics is a science, [...]
Admitting that publicly is the first step toward respectability.The last sentence, especially, indicates that economists are not currently respectable. If they'd like to be, they should listen to Russ Roberts and admit their own ignorance. It reminds me of a scene from the movie There Will Be Blood in which the main character, Daniel Plainview,in order to get on the good side of a corrupt preacher, first must admit in front of the congregation that Plainview has abandoned his son. Why Roberts thinks un-scientific and disrespectable economists should take the advice of a fellow un-scientific and disrespectable economist I do not know.
In general, I feel that Russ Roberts falls flat in the article precisely because he offers no respect to those he doesn't already think deserve it. If you come to the article agreeing with him, then you're fine. But if you come to it disagreeing with him, or remain somewhat unconvinced at the end, then he doesn't seem interested in your opinion anyway. Roberts isn't alone in this; he essentially is the Right-Wing counterpart of Paul Krugman: both bring up interesting topics, but in the end only manage to preach to the converted.
Posts
