Economics is to making good laws as engineering is to making solid buildings, yet politicians and their lawyers rarely consult economists when designing social systems.
Partly this is because social systems fail less dramatically than bridges, and its easier to redirect blame. Partly this is because of an odd hubris in which people who would never attempt to fly a plane, operate on a brain, or install a new water main without being trained think they can influence humans to gain even when its quite plain they're ignorant of the relevant scientific vein. This is insane.
- Mood:
sleepy
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
patrissimo- Patri Friedman
- Patri's World
Comments
In Spain!
Disputes in other fields are often easier to settle: physics is usually less ambiguous than economics (though far from unambiguous in many cases). The complexity of human behavior makes special pleading to keep wrong ideas alive much easier in economics than in physics. Also, people seem more inclined to wishful thinking in economics: while physical outcomes are absolute, economics is fuzzier and more susceptible to logic of the form, "If only we could teach people to behave in way X . . ." while ignoring that humans have never behaved in way X and probably never will.
Anyway, my point is that while crackpots exist for all disciplines, it's easier for crackpot economists to get credibility, which is a nuance to your point.
But in defense of the scieince, I think most of what is going on is not just wishful thinking. Its that it is often to a politician's benefit to use bad econ, where its much rarer for it to be to their benefit to use bad engineering (an exception would be something like the missile defense program). Its because of how it is used, not the state of knowledge in the field.