The following response to my comment on Krugman's "What a Hack" was forwarded to me. My comments follow. >> From a Marxian perspective, what is emerging on the list may be vulgar >> economy but from my perspective I think it is an exchange of ideas that >> would not have otherwise taken place especially not on such a WIDESPREAD >> scale. Paul Krugman attempts to do the same thing. As an economist, he >> has developed models that are truly clever and surprisingly simple >>because of his ingenious use of a few little tricks that have developed >>in economics. His models get to the point. Paul Krugman has made some >>great and extremely useful contributions in international economics as >>well as urban and regional economics, both of which have plenty to say >>about globalization. He has made major contributions to the NEW TRADE >>THEORY and developed the NEW ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY. Krugman's models are >>simple as a result of these established tricks that don't detract from >>the model's results. There is a two-fold reason for this simplicity, >>first of all these models are more tractable and can be solved >>numerically using only a desk top computer. I know this from >>experience, as I have expanded Krugman style models and then simulated >>them using only Microsoft excel. So a researcher does not have to be at a >>top ten university with a major foundation grant using a large mainframe >>computer to solve a model that may take several days to converge to a >>solution, to make a contribution. Secondly, the simplicity of the model >>makes it more widely read and understood by a wider audience. His models >>are simple and useful and knowledge of these models and their conclusions >>have become WIDESPREAD throughout the economics profession. Computers >>have helped spread knowledge and ideas. Computers and the internet have >>helped facilitate exchanges of ideas that would otherwise not have taken >>place, and computers and simple economics modelling tricks have helped >>Paul Krugman and others do the same thing. > >There are two Paul Krugmans (and I know both of them personally, since I >was his room-mate in college). > >The first is the clever theorist described above. I have no real argument >with that PK, since even when I disagree with his results, the assumptions >are extremely clear so I can decide for myself whether his assumptions are >wrong (so I reject his results) or my assumptions are right (so I reject >my presuppositions). In most cases, his theory says something about the >real world, but at the same presents a partial view of the political >whole. (That is, he leaves a lot out.) So I agree that his style of >modeling is a good thing. > >Some economic geographers claim that PK doesn't do his homework to study >the existing literature, and so reproduces research that had already been >done by others giving PK's work a spurious feel of originality. Not being >in this field, I can't endorse or criticize such charges of plagiarism. >But I know that PK doesn't do real literature surveys and only values work >if it's been presented in mathematical form within the most >establishmentarian part of the neoclassical canon. (BTW, much of the >economic geography literature he's accused of consciously or unconsciously >borrowing is mathematical.) I also know that even though he claims to be a >macroeconomist, most of his work in that field is extremely abstract and >thus superficial. > >The other PK is the one who leverages his theoretical capital into >becoming a journalistic pundit, playing the role of an economic Roman >emperor, giving thumbs up or thumbs down to various economic gladiators. >In this role, he is far from innovative, simply repackaging the >established wisdom of what's taught in intro economics at MIT and similar >self-selecting elite schools in pleasant prose. He's one of these folks >who practice something that should not appear in any science, especially >one with such weak foundations as economics: status worship. The more >prestigious someone is in the economics establishment, the more PK assumes >that their perspective is true. (He never criticizes Lawrence Summers >publicly, for example, even though I'm sure he disagrees strongly with >him.) He accepts the most shallow New York TIMES world-view with no >consciousness of its limitations, blithely assuming that he and the NYT >express the "general good" and have no taint of special interest. That is, >he assumes that the capitalists as a class express the general interest of >society as a whole. In this he ends up being a more pleasant version of >the NYT's pit-bull of punditry, Thomas Friedman. > >I also should note that PK's empirical economics is very weak, as shows up >regularly in his NYT column. His logic is deductive, starting with an >ideal model of the world derived from an uncited textbook to argue with >people who actively study the world. If one can only beat a theory with >another theory, one can deal with empiricists only by presenting data. >Unfortunately, I find that PK often doesn't try to understand his >opponents' point of view (since he shows little respect for them), so he >ends up not really talking to them. For example, for whatever reason, he >really hates Robert Reich. This prevents him from realizing (in PEDDLING >PROSPERITY, I believe) that Reich abandoned a lot of the ideas that PK >criticized him for and that Reich had actually moved in the direction of >PK's perspective. In that book, I found several other examples of PK and >his opponents talking past each other. Since he was the one presenting the >debate, he gets the blame on that one. Further, he chooses his opponents >wisely, choosing the ones he can beat. For example, he totally ignores the >research of Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison in PEDDLING PROSPERITY >even though it's relevant to his discussion (and presents a more >reasonable point of view than the opponents he chooses to trash). PK >almost never tries to find the reasonable parts of his opponents' >view-point in order to find a synthesis. Instead, he wants to smash and >burn them, in order to establish the Establishment truth. > >There's a useful critique of PK in Z magazine by economist Edward Herman. > >Jim Devine Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
