One is for a general lack of evidence to support claims made. This has led me into very long and protracted discussions with two folk in particular on Twitter, @unlearningecon and @austerity_sucks. I've been labelled a hack by the latter for questioning the certainty with which we can make policy conclusions based on econometric evidence, whilst the former sided with the latter despite later very openly critiquing econometric methods in a separate discussion. To me this seems inconsistent, but that's not my point in this post.
Regardless, the most recent unsubstantiated claim I decided to pick up on was by @unlearningecon, and was:
Students & the public are turning against economists and all they can do is be smug. Won't help them in the long run.
— Unlearning Economics (@UnlearningEcon) October 29, 2013
The subsequent (seemingly) endless discussion that followed didn't really address the main point: What is the basis for such a striking claim?
The claim(s) are:
1) Students are turning against economists.
2) The public are turning against economists.
3) Economists are just being smug in response to this.
4) This being smug won't help them in the long run.
So three empirically verifiable claims, and one forecast (which we won't be able to appraise for a while, if ever, due to its vagueness - what's the time horizon, for example?).
So, (1). Students are turning against economists. What does this mean, exactly? Does it mean students are stopping taking economics courses because they realise how utterly vacuous the subject really is? However, the numbers do not appear to support this (not had time to see whether economics is above/below any general trend in applications). From UCAS we can find that since 2006, the number of applications has risen by about a third from around 36000 to about 50000. Maybe it's the graduates that are feeling the pinch? Sadly I haven't the time to explore graduate destinations for students across subjects, but the data must exist (for example, see here).
Claim (2) ought to be explorable in an objective way (rather than simply one person asserting their opinion without any evidence provided to support), and ideally it would be. Are economists getting increasingly more virulent tweets directed at them, are feeds like @unlearningecon starting up, is Twitter reflective of "the public", etc.
Claim (3) is more tricky. But from further dialogue, being smug means "asserting your critics are ignorant without explaining". Now academics in general (not just economics) are remarkably good at being smug, aloof, and generally socially inept, so let's try and ignore that. I'm open to what smug would look like - and ideally it would be something where we can observe movements over time. A clear implication of smug is that there's no debate taking place (or at least a one-sided debate), so maybe again Twitter is an interesting place to go - can we identify economists on Twitter (probably), and can we work out whether they are increasingly ignoring criticisms being made of them, or otherwise?
The forecast (4) we can't appraise just yet, but it would be great if a bit more clarity could be provided:
a) What is the time horizon?
b) By what metric (student enrolments, journals in existence, etc.) should we judge the forecast?
c) Based on that metric, what exactly is the forecast? (i.e. 50% fewer applications/enrolments, 50% fewer journals, etc)
Now, of course, those that provide such striking statements as @unlearningecon may object at this point: (1) We can't use data for everything, and (2) I'm being pompous and smug.
(1) This is true, but it's important if one is making striking claims to be able to substantiate them. This claim is a big one, and if true it's one economics needs to take very seriously indeed. If they can't be substantiated, then why should anyone take them seriously?
(2) It is not pompous or smug to ask for some clarity on an important and striking claim regarding the future of one's subject.
First, I've not got a major opinion on the multiplier, except that I agree with @austerity_sucks' moniker and that many of the methods used to estimate the multiplier are very, very questionable. You can question some econometrics without questioning all of it, you know, and without dismissing it outright.
ReplyDeleteAs for your 'unsubstantiated claims', well that was not a standalone tweet - it followed a "debate" between myself, Chris Auld and others of which I'm sure you're aware. If you want to assert Chris' list, in which he didn't bother explaining any of his claims, was anything else than a smug dismissal of popular critics then be my guest.
(1) The 'post crash' society in Manchester, as well as similar ones across the country which are popping up was my basis for this claim. People are interested in the field of economics. Smart people are attracted to economics because it has a reputation for mathematical difficulty and because it offers a good pay differential. However, students seem to be disappointed with the abstractness of the course once they get onto it.
(2) I think the sheer volume of criticisms directed against economists since the crash shows this (Chris had 18 of them in his blog), as well as the Queen's infamous questioning of economists. Or articles like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/28/mainstream-economics-denial-world-changed
I don't know of any comprehensive surveys of public opinion of economists, though.
(3) I was really referring to Auld's list and the widespread "haha, yeah!"s it got from various economists. Didn't see anyone try to explain where the problem went wrong, but in this this case I'm willing to concede that I was really saying "economists, here's how you DON'T want to respond to criticism".
(4) Well I think movements like rethinking economics etc show things are shifting a bit. Many economists are actually quite cooperative with such movements and willing to change (though institutional rigidity, as always, have the real power) but putting out a public face like Chris Auld doesn't help anyone.
Ah it's refreshing not to be constrained to 140 characters.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'd say is Chris Auld's list was clearly written whilst on a bit of a rant - and it's a bit on the negative side, to put it mildly.
I found a better slant on it by another blogger which you may have come across (since you managed a reference there):
http://www.jasoncollins.org/six-signs-youre-reading-good-criticism-of-economics/
You obviously won't like (1) since I've seen you write elsewhere that you would prefer to read a critique written by a non-economist. And of course, one shouldn't be closed to criticism from without, but the nugget in there I think is true is that the critique has to be informed. Vague statement alert: Much of the stuff on Twitter comes from folk who haven't got the first idea what a model or a theory is.
On your first point, I've never doubted that you can criticise parts of econometrics without criticising the whole. That's what I regularly do since I'm part of that field. There's a lot wrong with the way many go about econometrics (e.g. Mostly Harmless Econometrics). Our discussion though was on basics essential to all econometrics - that we model economic variables as random variables (and then investigate things like unpredictability, or whatever alternate name you want to call that).