David B. Shemano wrote: > Regarding the motivations and incentives of the economics profession, I would > like to point out that each of you who addressed my post chose to set forth > theoretical arguments why academic economists would have impure incentives > and motivations notwithstanding an apparent instutional incentive as pure as > we are going to get, while entirely ignoring the issue of incentives with > respect to political actors, where we must rely on theoretical arguments why > a political actor might act in way contrary to the political institutional > incentives, which are not as pure as we are going to get.<
I don't think one has to say that economists have "impure incentives and motivations." Even without subjective self-selection, there's a process of objective selection: those economists who differ from the dominant ideology don't rise to the top. I don't remember being asked about what motivates politicians (e.g., Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama). But no matter: most of them want money and/or continued success in politics. Those who don't do so don't rise to the top. > To put it another way, we have Rod Blagojevich, politician extraordinaire. > Where is the actual example of the academic economist acting as the fine > Governor? ... < You're looking for a philosopher-king's modern equivalent, the economist-governor? The current presidents of Mexico and Ecuador (Felipe Calderón and Rafael Correa) are economists. The latter seems pretty good, while the former seems to be an IMF hack. Likely Correa does not fit the Platonic ideal of the philosopher king, however. Nobody's perfect. > I don't doubt there is academic groupthink, academics come with preconceived > notions, etc.< It's more than groupthink. That's a social-psychological phenomenon, usually occurring with a bunch of peers. What inflicts economists is a guild-like hierarchy of punishment and reward that fits well with the capitalist system. >In fact, it is amazing that every academic on this list is consistently wrong >on every important issue.< That's a very bold statement. I'm an academic economist: please, name one important issue upon which I am "consistently wrong." >But to think that it is more likely that political actors, cetis [sic] >paribus, are better incentivized than academics to reach disinterested >truth-seeking conclusions, and in fact that is what occurs? < I, for one, doubt that political actors face better incentives to reach disinterested truth-seeking conclusions than academics are. In fact, I don't think anyone thinks that political actors face these. Who are you talking about, David, who has this opinion? The case of politicians is like that of businesspeople, who also face bad incentives when it comes to disinterested truth-seeking conclusions. Since businesscritters seek profit at all cost and don't face the same urge to reach collective compromises, they're probably worse than politicians. But of course, the overlap between those two sets is gigantic in a business society like the US. There are a lot of people like Blagojevich who carry business ethics to their logical conclusion in politics. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
