What motivates economic journalists?
At least once a year, journalists who cover economics like to use the trope of “the dominant market-friendly paradigm is being challenged, changing economics as we understand it.” It’s safe to say that Patricia Cohen’s New York Times story from yesterday fits that bill: For many economists, questioning free-market orthodoxy is akin to expressing a ...
At least once a year, journalists who cover economics like to use the trope of "the dominant market-friendly paradigm is being challenged, changing economics as we understand it." It's safe to say that Patricia Cohen's New York Times story from yesterday fits that bill: For many economists, questioning free-market orthodoxy is akin to expressing a belief in intelligent design at a Darwin convention: Those who doubt the naturally beneficial workings of the market are considered either deluded or crazy. But in recent months, economists have engaged in an impassioned debate over the way their specialty is taught in universities around the country, and practiced in Washington, questioning the profession?s most cherished ideas about not interfering in the economy. ?There is much too much ideology,? said Alan S. Blinder, a professor at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Economics, he added, is ?often a triumph of theory over fact.? Mr. Blinder helped kindle the discussion by publicly warning in speeches and articles this year that as many as 30 million to 40 million Americans could lose their jobs to lower-paid workers abroad. Just by raising doubts about the unmitigated benefits of free trade, he made headlines and had colleagues rubbing their eyes in astonishment. ?What I?ve learned is anyone who says anything even obliquely that sounds hostile to free trade is treated as an apostate,? Mr. Blinder said. And free trade is not the only sacred subject, Mr. Blinder and other like-minded economists say. Most efforts to intervene in the markets ? like setting a minimum wage, instituting industrial policy or regulating prices ? are viewed askance by mainstream economists, as are analyses that do not rely on mathematical modeling.The story conflates a bunch of things (adopting interventionist policy positions, deviating from formal methods, behavioral economics, heterodox economics) together. Alex Tabarrok has a nice takedown (and see also Greg Mankiw). Even Dani Rodrik (cited in the piece) thinks the article "does overstate it quite a bit." What's of interest to me is that this kind of scattershot critique of standard economic theory -- in which a whole bunch of disparate, even contradictory critiques are lumped together -- seems to be a common trope among journalists. My question is, why? There's a Freakonomics-style question to be asked here -- are journalists who wash out of Ph.D. programs more or less likely to do this? What about journalists with overt ideological biases? And why the hell hasn't The New Republic written its standard, contrarian, "the neoclassical model does better than you think" kind of piece?
At least once a year, journalists who cover economics like to use the trope of “the dominant market-friendly paradigm is being challenged, changing economics as we understand it.” It’s safe to say that Patricia Cohen’s New York Times story from yesterday fits that bill:
For many economists, questioning free-market orthodoxy is akin to expressing a belief in intelligent design at a Darwin convention: Those who doubt the naturally beneficial workings of the market are considered either deluded or crazy. But in recent months, economists have engaged in an impassioned debate over the way their specialty is taught in universities around the country, and practiced in Washington, questioning the profession?s most cherished ideas about not interfering in the economy. ?There is much too much ideology,? said Alan S. Blinder, a professor at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Economics, he added, is ?often a triumph of theory over fact.? Mr. Blinder helped kindle the discussion by publicly warning in speeches and articles this year that as many as 30 million to 40 million Americans could lose their jobs to lower-paid workers abroad. Just by raising doubts about the unmitigated benefits of free trade, he made headlines and had colleagues rubbing their eyes in astonishment. ?What I?ve learned is anyone who says anything even obliquely that sounds hostile to free trade is treated as an apostate,? Mr. Blinder said. And free trade is not the only sacred subject, Mr. Blinder and other like-minded economists say. Most efforts to intervene in the markets ? like setting a minimum wage, instituting industrial policy or regulating prices ? are viewed askance by mainstream economists, as are analyses that do not rely on mathematical modeling.
The story conflates a bunch of things (adopting interventionist policy positions, deviating from formal methods, behavioral economics, heterodox economics) together. Alex Tabarrok has a nice takedown (and see also Greg Mankiw). Even Dani Rodrik (cited in the piece) thinks the article “does overstate it quite a bit.” What’s of interest to me is that this kind of scattershot critique of standard economic theory — in which a whole bunch of disparate, even contradictory critiques are lumped together — seems to be a common trope among journalists. My question is, why? There’s a Freakonomics-style question to be asked here — are journalists who wash out of Ph.D. programs more or less likely to do this? What about journalists with overt ideological biases? And why the hell hasn’t The New Republic written its standard, contrarian, “the neoclassical model does better than you think” kind of piece?
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
