The End of Freakonomics?
One popular vein of economic — indeed, academic — research is “Freakonomics.” What this term means is subject to debate, but I’ll loosely summarize it as “economists using interesting data to investigate phenomena outside of economics.” Or at least outside of its traditional boundaries. Examples from Steven Levitt’s work include teachers who help students cheat on standardized tests, the effect of child safety seats, and, perhaps most famously, the effect of abortion on crime rates. Examples from other scholars include studies on racial bias in NBA refereeing and the impact of television on scholastic aptitude.
I’m not a Freakonomics basher. (For some of that, see the link in Lee’s previous post.) But I’m struck by how quickly the agenda in economics has appeared to change with the onset of the financial crisis, the relatively severe recession that seems imminent, and debates about how the government should response (bailouts, a stimulus, etc.). I see evidence of the changing agenda in a blog like Marginal Revolution, for example (from the past three days alone: here, here, here, and here).
I wonder then if this will turn the attention of economists back to the spadework that is less likely to interest media outlets — who, unsurprisingly and unfortunately, find racist referees more compelling than vector auto-regressions involving monetary policy — but more likely to fit within traditional economics as opposed to Freakonomics. In particular, I wonder if the next generation of economics graduate students, who as rational actors will no doubt want to invest their energies where returns are highest, will be churning out research about credit-default swaps, sub-prime mortgages, derivatives, the effects of any stimulus, historical comparisons to the Great Depression, etc.
Of course, there is work on such topics already — e.g., incoming CEA head Christina Romer on the Great Depression — but the question is whether these topics will become hot, somewhat supplanting Freakonomics as a mode or subject of inquiry.
Comments
for me the benefit of Freakonomics (and the reason Levitt got the Clarkes medal) was always it’s insistence on interesting and original ways to get clean identification.
I think a lot of economists (and political scientists) have advanced beyond that and employ freakonomic tools to questions that are genuinely interesting (e.g. a lot of the micro-development people).
I’ve always thought that the most obnoxious phrase in Freakonomics (which has a lot of obnoxious phrases) was the one claiming economics has a scarcity of interesting questions.
Posted by: Sebastian | November 26, 2008 12:30 PM
I hope you don’t think that Marginal Revolution is anywhere near where the median academic economist is when it comes to the discipline - because it clearly isn’t.
Posted by: wherethestreetshavenoname | November 26, 2008 01:29 PM
Whereas I find the media ignoring vector auto-regressions to be a good thing.
Now, if they start ignoring the same research done with a nice, clean FGLS…..
:)
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | November 26, 2008 02:17 PM
….Projections and predictions conjured by those who took the shotgun seat in the vehicle which drove us to the precipice.
We have created monsters in the form of omnipotent economists. They are not what they seem.
-
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/economists-our-new-philosopher-kings.html
—
Perhaps society has simply overplayed them. It would be much more productive to listen to entrepreneurs.
Posted by: PacificGatePost | November 29, 2008 04:14 AM