Going medieval on a bad paper
The editors of Foreign Policy asked me to review an article for them for their “Global Newsstand” section of the January/February 2008 issue. The result: “Dismal Political Science“: Are economists increasingly in charge of politics? Do economists make better leaders? These are the questions that Anil Hira, a political scientist at Canada?s Simon Fraser University, ...
The editors of Foreign Policy asked me to review an article for them for their "Global Newsstand" section of the January/February 2008 issue. The result: "Dismal Political Science": Are economists increasingly in charge of politics? Do economists make better leaders? These are the questions that Anil Hira, a political scientist at Canada?s Simon Fraser University, is ostensibly trying to answer in his essay, ?Should Economists Rule the World?? in the June 2007 issue of the International Political Science Review. In the article, he claims that ?there has been a notable rising importance of economics as a background for leaders in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.? But he concludes that, even if economics is appearing on more political resumes, this training does not appear to help these leaders achieve better economic outcomes. (Hira cites Peru?s Alejandro Toledo, Indonesia?s Suharto, and U.S. President George W. Bush as examples of leaders who may have disappointed their economics instructors.) These are fascinating results. Alas, they?re fascinating in ways that lead one to seriously question the refereeing process at the International Political Science Review.I'm afraid the rest is firewalled, but here's the nut paragraph: Simply put, the paper provides no actual evidence to support his conclusion that economists are ineffective leaders of national economies. To do that, he would have had to compare the periods when a technocrat was the national leader with the periods when there was a different kind of leader. Or he could have compared countries that had economists in charge with those countries that did not. Or he could have done both. But Hira did none of the above. Rather, he points to three trends over time: an increase in economically literate leaders, a slowdown of economic growth, and an increase in inequality. Then he simply asserts that the first trend must have caused the latter two trends. That?s Olympics-caliber hand-waving.
The editors of Foreign Policy asked me to review an article for them for their “Global Newsstand” section of the January/February 2008 issue. The result: “Dismal Political Science“:
Are economists increasingly in charge of politics? Do economists make better leaders? These are the questions that Anil Hira, a political scientist at Canada?s Simon Fraser University, is ostensibly trying to answer in his essay, ?Should Economists Rule the World?? in the June 2007 issue of the International Political Science Review. In the article, he claims that ?there has been a notable rising importance of economics as a background for leaders in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.? But he concludes that, even if economics is appearing on more political resumes, this training does not appear to help these leaders achieve better economic outcomes. (Hira cites Peru?s Alejandro Toledo, Indonesia?s Suharto, and U.S. President George W. Bush as examples of leaders who may have disappointed their economics instructors.) These are fascinating results. Alas, they?re fascinating in ways that lead one to seriously question the refereeing process at the International Political Science Review.
I’m afraid the rest is firewalled, but here’s the nut paragraph:
Simply put, the paper provides no actual evidence to support his conclusion that economists are ineffective leaders of national economies. To do that, he would have had to compare the periods when a technocrat was the national leader with the periods when there was a different kind of leader. Or he could have compared countries that had economists in charge with those countries that did not. Or he could have done both. But Hira did none of the above. Rather, he points to three trends over time: an increase in economically literate leaders, a slowdown of economic growth, and an increase in inequality. Then he simply asserts that the first trend must have caused the latter two trends. That?s Olympics-caliber hand-waving.
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.
