> and on (including work by ICES colleagues)... On balance I would argue that > Levitt is indeed unusually clever (in the sense that he comes up with good > questions and also finds interesting natural manipulations to study them), > but that his particular approach to economic science is not novel: Vernon > Smith has been using it for decades. - Dan
Correct me if I am wrong, but a big difference between Vernon Smith and Levitt is that Smith focuses mostly on a single area - experimental econ with a cognitive focus - while Levitt is a bit more wide ranging in his interests. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe that's a reason Levitt is so distinctive. Few people have the cleverness to consistently spot interesting puzzles and then have the tenacity to find data that can actually test hypotheses. Of course, the long term interesting question: will such puzzle solving lead to greater economic insight? I think so. In mathematics, such puzzle solvers are good at showing all sorts of cherished ideas are wrong and the evidence accumulated from such research can force people to think in new ways. Also, puzzle solvers are good at finding tricks that can be used to solve other problems. I wouldn't be surprised if Levitt's long term legacy is like that of Paul Erdos the mathematician who was notorious for solving goofy problems, but whose solutions forced people to rethink a lot of math. Fabio
