Mainstream (neoclassical) economics has always put a strong emphasis on the positivist conception of the discipline, characterizing economists and their views as objective, unbiased, and non-ideological. This is still true today, even after the 2008 economic crisis exposed the discipline to criticisms for lack of open debate, intolerance for pluralism, and narrow pedagogy. Even mainstream scholars who do not blatantly refuse to acknowledge the profession's shortcomings still resist identifying ideological bias as one of the main culprits. They often favor other “micro” explanations, such as individual incentives related to academic power, career advancement, and personal and editorial networks. Economists of different traditions do not agree with this diagnosis, but their claims have been largely ignored and the debate suppressed.
Acknowledging that ideology resides quite comfortably in our economics departments would have huge intellectual implications, both theoretical and practical. In spite (or because?) of that, the matter has never been directly subjected to empirical scrutiny.
In a recent study, we do just that. Using a well-known experimental “deception” technique embedded in an online survey that involves just over 2400 economists from 19 countries, we fictitiously attribute the source of 15 quotations to famous economists of different leanings. In other words, all participants received identical statements to agree or disagree with, but source attribution was randomly changed without the participants' knowledge. The experiment provides clear evidence that ideological bias strongly influences the ideas and judgements of economists. More specifically, we find that changing source attributions from mainstream to less-/non-mainstream figures significantly reduces the respondents' reported agreement with statements. Interestingly, this contradicts the image economists have of themselves, with 82% of participants reporting that in evaluating a statement one should only pay attention to its content and not to the views of its author.
Moreover, we find that our estimated ideological bias varies significantly by the personal characteristics of economists in our sample. For example, economists' self-reported political orientation strongly influences their ideological bias, with estimated bias going up as respondents' political views move to the right. The estimated bias is also stronger among mainstream than among heterodox economists, with macroeconomists exhibiting the strongest bias. Men also display more bias than women. Geographical differences also play a major role, with less bias among economists in Africa, South America, and Mediterranean countries like Italy, Portugal, and Spain. In addition, economists with undergraduate degrees in economics or business/management tend to show stronger ideological biases.
I strongly recommend the whole article, but there are a number of important things to note.
The first is that, as the authors note, this outstanding and original research has not been published by an academic journal. It's clear it has been rejected from the comments the authors make. The reason is not hard to imagine: the authors have challenged the right-wing economic mainstream and shown it to promote ideas based on methodologies that are themselves based on falsehoods. That will never do! The myth of economic objectivity must be maintained at all times.
Second, what they show is that bias is more likely on the right-wing than the left-wing. And amongst men than women. And in the USA than in developing countries.
This is not just heterodox: this is heresy. It may be true, but that does not matter: heresy must be suppressed.
I salute the authors for proving what we always knew: the economic hegemon is biased.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
From the paper
” A very rough estimate of the participation rate in our own survey is around 15% ”
and
” we find that changing/removing sources (1) has no impact on economists’ reported confidence with their evaluations; (2) similarly affects experts/non-experts in relevant areas; and (3) affects those at the far right of the political spectrum much more significantly than those at the far left. Finally, we find significant heterogeneity in our results by gender, country, PhD completion country, research area, and undergraduate major, with patterns consistent with the existence of ideological bias. ”
The implication of your 3rd last sentence is not supported. Your 4th last sentence only holds up if you were to add the word ‘far’ in front of ‘right-wing’.
Based on what you have written I am not sure what you are suggesting I got wrong.
And the third last sentence is my opinion. I stand by it.
Mainstream economics has more in common with religious belief than science.
You use the word ‘heresy’. Very apt.
I’m shocked.
Leigh Bowden says:
“I’m shocked.”
I wonder if a smiley should follow that comment. (?) I’m not shocked at all. Not even mildly surprised. Much of the findings would probably be repeatable in a number of academic disciplines, even the so-called ‘hard sciences’.
Academic politics is by no means exclusive to the field of economics and is inclined to produce groupthink. A student does not generally endear herself to her tutors by arguing with the veracity of the course material; particularly in the first couple of years by which time indoctrination is likely to be well advanced.
I’m not much surprised either by the response of MD Jahvani, who seems to go straight into kneejerk denial mode. Must be an economist by training (?)
I am not surprised. I am curious how the referees’ reports read for this work.
As a referee the institution’s address does influence, perhaps for some of of the following reasons:
1) Personal bias, and in the face of an editor who will bias “good” over “not good” academics and institutions. And challenge reports they don’t like e.g. that may place their own journal in a harsh light.
2) Editors are biased, even if they try not to be; I was an Editor and an Editor-in-Chief for 20 odd years, of a science journal. And the journal’s owner will monitor you and comment on preference toward “good” institutions e.g. to uplift a journal’s impact factor.
3) Editors talk to other editors and their editorial panels and community, sometimes gossiping on good and poor referees.
4) Referees for journals and academic grants may think they are anonymous when submitting their confidential reports. But many awarding committees have a ‘decode list’ that identify referees. Having been at a national awards panel and had an ‘anonymous’ referee, a (junior) colleague eviscerated for their remarks, and I was asked for comment on possible explanations?
Science is thought to be more objective than say economics, but perhaps not so significantly. Frequently academics self-support other academics they deem as “good”, if only to garner more citations for their own H-index [1] by mutual citation, look at the growth in size of appended publication lists in academic articles, and supplementary materials.
[1] https://researchguides.uic.edu/c.php?g=252299&p=1683205
it’s nice to see Ha Joon Chang being mentioned again,
I’ve been keeping an eye out for anything connected with him lately but he rarely gets into the anglophone media,
looking at his website it seems the only english language media source that has interviewed him recently was the LSE Student Newspaper,
he does seem well received in the global south though,
http://hajoonchang.net/
thanks for flagging this article, I doubt I would have found it otherwise.
I know Ha Joon, a bit
He has not been that well of late which may in part explain his absence
I had a great lecturer at university who challenged the mainstream approach to economics in her political economy course.
During that course I swung decidedly leftwards, having until that point being what I would look back on as an angry, blinkered, narrow-minded neoliberal loon.
It just so happens that the co-author of the article you refer to wrote a book which I read during that course. And it was that book that really shattered all my illusions about economics and kickstarted a permanent change in my outlook.
It was Ha Joon Chang’s “Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective” And I would recommend it to anyone.
It comprehensively demolishes neoliberal approaches to economic development, by showing that they are based upon historical fictions, and instead argues for policy based on what has actually been proven to be successful in the real world. For something a bit less academic, then his book Bad Samaritans is good too and easier to read.
p.s. Shout out to the lecturer mentioned above – Dr. Sam Ashman, formerly of Birmingham University’s POLSIS/Political Economy department. If it wasn’t for that course I might still be a blinkered idiot. I’m still angry, but I think that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
p.s. 2 – I am much more interested in political economy rather than economics. To me, much of mainstream economics seems like a de-politicisation exercise; taking political choices out of the hands of politicians because, well, that’s how the market works, stupid. Whereas I feel political economy grounds itself in looking at economic issues as political choices rather than rules, textbooks, curves and equations.
Human behaviour, organisation, resources and endeavour determine what is possible. Economic theories do not; but they can be used to stifle what is possible.
Political economy is, in my opinion, vastly more useful than the debased shell of a discipline now masquerading as economics
such biases as mentioned above have outcomes – political outcomes such as this one:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-greens-debt/greens-accuse-merkel-of-voodoo-fiscal-policy-want-new-debt-for-climate-plan-idUSKCN1V20TJ
the problem is that the head of the Greens in Germany can talk ONLY in terms of government debt with respect to the energy transformation. This guy has been groomed over decades by the corner shop nonesense that german economists spout. He appears incapable of asking even the most basic of questions (why gov debt?) & yes in some ways Germany is special given it has the Bundesbank & its wholly owned subsidiary – the European Central Bank.
It may be he knows his audience…
Hello Again Richard – super article, really enjoyed it thanks.
I’m ashamed to be an economist now.
I think we all knew that economists suffer badly from ideological bias – at least now this is empirically supported.
While Javdani and Chang demonstrate the prevalence of confirmation bias/bandwagon effects and also suggest reactive devaluation is rife among economists (some more than others), I think you have extrapolated things just a wee bit too far:
“the authors have challenged the right-wing economic mainstream and shown it to promote ideas based on methodologies that are themselves based on falsehoods.”
Yes the right-wingers appear measurably more biased but the authors don’t actually prove their methodologies are based on falsehoods. The real issue issue here is how to change economists’ minds. If indeed “it is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into” then this does not bode well for Modern Monetary Theory, for example. How best to disseminate new perspectives then? If many thinkers shout long and hard enough, will this change minds? Will a practical example of success in applied MMT do it? Maybe the looming recession will force a rethink?
In the meantime may be we should quote Swift:
“You should never be ashamed to admit you have been wrong. It only proves you are wiser today than yesterday”
…..Either that or just tell right-wing economists MMT was authored by Thatcher and Friedman…
I think we’ll have to disagree
Have these authors learned nothing from their own research???
They obviously needed to submit it to the journal under the names of some establishment right-wing neo-classical economists.
Again 🙂
Chang also recommends ‘License to be Bad’ by Jonathan Aldred that I am currently coming to terms with.
I’m with Richard on this one and Chang & Co.
I like Jonathan and his work
I have not got to that one yet
Ah – well it’s a very detailed and thorough debunking of theories such as Game Theory but also very good at pointing out misunderstandings (I mean, we all know Adam Smith is misunderstood by the Right – agreed?) and the misapplications of economic theory.
Interestingly enough Aldred rejects the term ‘Neo-liberalism’ as he thinks no-one can agree on what it means.
What is occurring to me as I read it is how desperate the Chicago school was at jumping on any new theory in order to justify its ideas.
Neoliberalism is a label, not a definition
No neoliberal would ever agree that they were…
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“Ah — well it’s a very detailed and thorough debunking of theories such as Game Theory”
I don’t think Game Theory is ‘debunkable’. It may throw up some questionable and controversial interpretations, but you can’t get away with chucking the whole area of understanding out the window. There are valid and instructive insights there.
Consider it as a way of thinking rather than a canon of off-the-peg answers.
Game theory is highly applicable to economics if for no other reason than it concentrates on the psychology and motivations of the actors. ‘Pure’ economics doesn’t; it assumes ‘rational behaviour’ which explains in part why so much economic theory fails to explain anything we want and need to know.
It’s a tool
Like all tools it has to be used in the right way at the right time, and best when used by someone who has some idea what they are doing
At last. But will it last?
Looks like a great article. I think the idea of “positive economics” is a con-trick by the economics mainstream; in practice, any statements about the economy that go beyond very simple descriptive observations (e.g. “the UK has 32 million people in paid employment”) contain value judgements, often implicitly. The vast majority of economics has a normative component.
Agreed
And I think it should be explicit
Howard Reed says:
“…any statements about the economy that go beyond very simple descriptive observations (e.g. “the UK has 32 million people in paid employment”) contain value judgements, often implicitly. …”
Even that, apparently objective, observation is of dubious value given the casualised nature of much employment and the government’s wish to massage and manipulate the figures. In theory we have a statutory national minimum wage, but many for one reason or another do not receive it for their labour.
It is one of the abiding myths of our age that numbers offer neutral and objective assessments which can be trusted to illuminate the truth. On the contrary they are often the most convincing way to lie.
Agreed
And no one knows that better than Howard
Yes that’s true Andy – good point.
best
Howard
Andy
I think that you should read Aldred’s book. Seriously.
There are plenty of examples of not only misapplications of theory but really bad theory. Game Theory may have its applications and ‘insights’ (more like ‘incites’ – incitement to think the worst of people) – it comes across as the latter.
And I will say this: I’ve had enough of effing Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma etc. They have held sway for far too long. I want the theories of MMT, GND, PQE and SCA being discussed. I want altruism being discussed and human kindness celebrated. Real human traits that, within the confines of theories like Game Theory, are called ‘irrational’!! Irrational!!? Yet there is clear evidence from history that human beings are also co-operative animals and that far from kindness being irrational, it is part of a sophisticated exchange and guarantee system in society for which a likewise mutual return is expected and actually leads to social cohesion. Thatcher – that ultra of ultra-right minions sought to tear that up and still holds court – but she was wrong and so was Hayek and the others.
A lot of these theories are prescriptive – just like the economics that flows from them – and they are prescriptive because they are somewhat artificial – man-made by men who far from being objective – create idealised worlds and human traits to falsely (in my view) win an argument.
And yet it is MMT, full employment, the common wheal, decent wages and affordable places to live that we are told time and time again are utopian, unsustainable and unobtainable. Those wanting SCA and PQE – those people are dreamers – not idiots like Hayek and Friedmann.
Well, they are wrong. We have been suckered and drawn in by ideas that justify greed and self-interest, that essentially lead us to cutting our noses off to spite our faces.
Thanks PSR
@Pilgrim
You really don’t like game theory do you?
It’s a bit like MMT. It’s not what it says so much as who uses that knowledge and to what ends. US hawks know how it works and they have racked up trillions for the military industrial complex. Deficit guilt is to keep the plebs in order; and it works.
If you take for example the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ which explains a ‘rational self-interest’ position it becomes clear, I would have thought, why we need effective governance and regulation.
Unless we are content to live in a competitive bear pit. There is a parallel too with the revelations of evolution. We can use that understanding to justify eugenics (if we’re barking mad) or we can see that altruism is (or can be) a rational and highly effective survival strategy. (I persist in believing that if Richard Dawkins had called his very fine book ‘The Cooperative Gene’ we’d be living, now, in a different world. Particularly since most people don’t seem to have read it beyond the cover.)
Game theory doesn’t make people behave badly. It can be used to justify bad behaviour by people who would behave badly anyway as some always have done.
Game Theory goes some way towards explaining why we make bad decisions. Don’t shoot the messenger, I’d say.
We need to look more carefully at the questions we ask before we start groping in the dark for answers.
Who is groping in the dark here?
Not I. I see clearly the misapplications and crude generalisations behind things like Game Theory and Public Choice Theory.
Game Theory thinking can almost certainly be applied no doubt to a certain percentage of the population.
It might be that a significant number of that portion of population work in the finance sector or find themselves in the top 1% might think in the way Game Theory works. Me – all I see is co-operation and kindness at my level of society.
But what really surprises me is that you mention Game Theory next to MMT!! Why? Because they are just theories?
If so, you are missing out one major factor: that MMT (and PQE, GND) have NOT been tried as much as policies emanating from Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma, Nudge and Public Choice Theory.
Putting the two together is not valid Andy – not at all. Many have ben tested and found wanting; MMT and co are waiting to be tried. Lets give MMT, GND, PQE 30-40 years and THEN mention them alongside Game Theory et al for a valid comparison.
Some of these ideas have been used for 30-40 + years in public policy with no discernible benefit to society; Nudge came on the scene since 2010 and Richard Thaler is none too keen on using Nudge theory to coerce people into other choices the way the Tory government has – in fact rather than nudging anyone, the Tories have actually gripped people by the throat and kicked them into making other choices – they have called library closures and Universal Credit ‘nudge’ and totally mis appropriated Nudge as much as the Chicago School did with the Coase Theorem.
Game Theory? Public Choice Theory? The Prisoner’s Dilemma? I tell you – you can’t polish things that are turds – including intellectual ones. That’s what they are as theories. They’re not theories of human society at all – they are merely theories of fake human instances or happenstance – nothing more – blown out of proportion because of the desperate need to intellectually justify bad behaviour – thus making the exception of human behaviour the norm.
Honestly – read Aldred’s book – it is detailed and focussed.
@Pilgrim Slight Return.
Observations.
“I see clearly the misapplications and crude generalisations” I don’t think you can blame the theory for its misapplications.
“MMT (and PQE, GND) have NOT been tried as much as policies emanating from Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma, Nudge and Public Choice Theory.”
Notice I only referred to MMT, not to possible appropriate applications of the knowledge such as PQE and GND, but to suggest that the US has run-up 20 trillion national debts without somebody understanding MMT is questionable to my mind.
MMT, Game Theory, Nudge and Public Choice theory tell you how to do it, not what has to be done.
The implementation of knowledge and understanding and its baleful effects are political choices. We have been ‘nudged’ for four decades, very effectively in a direction we don’t like because those we have trusted to govern have nudged us that way for their own ends. Does that invalidate ‘Nudging’? On the contrary I suggest it means that ‘we’ need to nudge back. You might as soon complain propaganda is nonsense because it is not telling YOU what YOU want to hear.
I don’t like football….but there’s no point complaining when you lost the game that the other side wouldn’t let you have the ball.
If we reject the tools that are available to us and allow the opposition camp unfettered use of them we are going to keep getting stuffed.
The prisoners’ dilemma tells you that the best possible outcome relies on cooperation and trust. That’s not the message that an abusive elite wants to hear so they re-frame it to their advantage and focus on the opportunity for selfish advantage. And we have let them get a way with it even though we know it’s wrong.