Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Art Carden:
Heavy traffic is a problem every economist in the world knows how to solve: price road access, and charge high prices during rush hour. With technologies like E-ZPass and mobile apps, it’s easier than ever. That we don’t pick this low-hanging fruit is a pretty serious indictment of public policy. If we can’t address what is literally a principles-level textbook example of a negative spillover with a fairly easy fix, what hope do we have for effective public policy on other margins? (more)
Yes! If economists actually cared about influencing real policy, they would:
Identify a few strong candidate policies that are a) widely endorsed by economists, b) based on relatively simple clean analysis, c) not much adopted in the wider world, and d) should bring big gains.
Try to engage other intellectuals in detail on one or a few of these, seeking to either gain their endorsement, or to understand better the barriers that block them. If possible, do this as a group, and using all our status levers to make them respond in detail. If we succeed in persuading intellectuals, then join with them to try to persuade policy-makers, again either succeeding or better understanding barriers.
Once we better understand barriers, focus our economic research on doing what it takes to overcome them.
By not doing this, we basically say that while we think we know how to make a better world, we don’t much care if that happens; our priorities are elsewhere.
Do Economists Care?
The reason this is not correct is because of negative externalities, i.e. negative effects that your decision to drive has on other people. When you drive during rush hour, you naturally take into account the waiting-costs this imposes on you. But what you probably do not take into account is the increased waiting time for other drivers by there now being one more car on the road. The other drivers similarly fail to take into account the waiting-costs they impose on others. The result is an over-utilization of roads during peak hours.
Let's assume economists do arrive at a consensus on a topic. Once this occurs, the path to status within economics is to create a contrary view which is plausible. People wanting to hear this view will both pay for it and broadcast it. You will be on the cover of magazines, and possibly even invited to dinner by the current or future president.
This is one of the major problems with the social sciences. The subject of the science can read what is written and respond to it with social incentives, unfortunately degrading the objectivity of the science in the process.