The Monkey Cage

I’d like a Smithwick’s, please. Must I wait until APSA?

http://weblamp.princeton.edu/rppe/people/faculty.php

Don’t get too thirsty yet, Eric. “Political economy” was a source for both modern economics and modern political science, not a subfield of economics. And the same is true today. There are a lot of political scientists who do political economy, just as there are a lot of economiss who do political economy. You’re thinking like a standard-issue economics imperialist: If we do it, it’s ours. I vote against any free Smithwick’s for you.

I think this is being pedantic. One’s career needn’t be defined merely by their degree. Though he might not be undertaking any massive macroeconomic studies, it’s not incorrect to describe someone who studies political economy, public policy and public choice an economist. This would be like saying that Mike Munger isn’t a political scientist simply because he doesn’t have a degree in it.

I’m an economist, but I’m with Henry on this one. Just because someone is doing work that an economist might appreciate doesn’t make him/her an economist. The parallel to Mike isn’t perfect, because Mike is in a Political Sci. department, with an economics degree, and publishes in both fields. SO he’s a bit ambiguous. Larry is in a Politics Dept, with a Political Science Degree, and the only pub on his CV that looks like an Econ journal to me is something in the National Tax Journal.

On the other had, you asked for “any evidence”, and the linked page would move my prior up slightly, as there are certainly a goodly number of economists on that list (including some that, while technically in the politics department, you could make a good argument for them being closeted economists, like Scott Ashworth)

Lee,

As PLW notes, Henry asked for “any evidence that he’s an economist of any description whatsoever.” I provided said evidence, which other commenters took as reasonable. If the claim was that Bartels was a capital E economist, I’d agree with you. But that was not the claim.

Just because you don’t like beer in addition to coffee doesn’t mean no one should have free beer.

I have nothing against beer, despite my abstemiousness. That’s my problem, not beer’s.

But nothing you’ve said constitutes evidence that Larry Bartels is an economist. He’s a political scientist, and we’ll keep him.

Parallel: I publish fairly frequently in sociology journals, but don’t call me a sociologist. I’ve also had joint appointments in public administration and communication, but that hasn’t made me anything other than a political scientist.

I’ll buy you a beer myself (a Dog Fish Head would be better than a Smithwick’s) if you promise not to call Larry Bartels anything but a political scientist.

Eric, you’ll be waiting on that Smithwicks I’m afraid (anyway, according to my father, the current brew isn’t a patch on what they used to make back in the 1960s). I’ve been known to describe myself as a ‘political economist,’ but that doesn’t mean that I’m an economist. Rather than political economy being a sub-branch of economics, I would argue that economics (as currently taught in the academy) is a sub-branch of political economy, which includes large chunks of political science and economic sociology, as well as smaller bits of geography and other disciplines.

And Lee is right on the beer front too - Dogfish Head strictly dominates Smithwicks in any reasonable ale-to-ale comparison (and I say that as an Irishman who grew up drinking the Gaelic brew rather than the American).

I think this thread demonstrates the tendency in academia to fear threats of apostasy for doing work in a different subject. What happened interdisciplinary work?

Deirdre McCloskey is titled “Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication” while being an economic historian primarily. But why is it bad to cal her a economist, historian, philosopher, legal scholar, English scholar, feminist scholar and communicator?

Since sociology contains a sub-field of “political sociology”, why would it be so bad to call Dr. Sigelman a political scientist and political sociologist?

Thus I think Eric L. is correct. You asked for “any” evidence of being an economist. He is a political economist which is related to both disciplines. He has published in a tax journal and on the economy multiple times. I don’t think the world is going to end if we accurately describe Bartels as a political scientist and economist.

But what do I know; I’m not in academia yet.

Lee, I’ve never called Bartels an economist, and I promise never to do so.

Henry, you asked for “any evidence that he’s an economist of any description whatsoever.” I didn’t realize that “any” is an essentially contested concept, but apparently it is. I’m glad I learned something from this exchange. That said, if you want me to believe that Dogfish Head dominates Smithwicks [sic], bring me one of each and I’ll decide.

Robert S., you clearly have great potential, even if Henry doesn’t think so.

Robert: You just don’t understand: (1) Nobody except economists likes economists. So to be called an economist is, well, and insult. (2) And nobody except a sociologist would ever want to be known as a sociologist. Including me.

I think Lee nails it. On both counts.

I’m confused, is that supposed to be a defense of such attitudes?

Robert:

Take it easy — we’re just havin’ some fun. I’m buying: Smithwick’s or Dogfish Head?

I’m a teetotaler, but I’ll take a microbrewed rootbeer anyday.

I can’t speak for the sociologists, but we economists know that everyone hates us, and we kind of love it. After all, everyone hated Socrates too.

Bring on the hemlock…