Econland without Economists

Economics?

Despite being called the dismal science there is very little to be dismayed about when studying economics. A concept so diverse and intertwined with our lives to the extent we take it for granted. What irked Adam Smith and many thought leaders of their time was precisely the fact that mechanisms of our daily lives were better understood with an acknowledgement of wider effects of the economy on the individual, the collective and their decisions. However, few of us have fully read The Wealth of Nations or better yet tried to, myself included! Reason being its the language isn't reader friendly for our time. However, it was ground breaking in terms of its content on division of labor and the invisible hand mechanisms. On the other hand, those whom have read Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's Freaknomics or Tim Hartfod's The Undercover Economist would think of economics as a more approachable subject.

Whether you like economics or not the question we need to ask Why Economics? Quite simply economics aims to answer a basic time old question.

How do we use our limited resources to meet our unlimited needs and wants?

To answer that open ended question economics branched into so many sub fields both macro and micro seeking to address the many issues and challenges. With their theories and models many answers were proposed to our past behaviors as countries, societies and individuals. However, one thing economist were not particularly good at is predicting the future. Economist are blessed with a Palantir, to borrow from Tolkien's mythology. A crystal ball that looks in the past and the future, but may show things that may yet come or not at all.

"A Palantir is a dangers tool ... Saruman" Gandalf, Lord of the Rings

True economist can hardly predict the future with precision or accuracy we wish, however, that isn't what it should be about. A game of pinball is as predictable as the next recession or boom. Economists with their 'flippers' can only try to react and understand the fallout of either. That being said, economist can play a critical role in understanding the mechanics of our choices better informing us as individuals, businesses and policy makers. To do so, economist need to go beyond their time tested methods and approaches to more open cross cutting understanding of the world. This perhaps is part of why behavioral economics has an interesting stream of economics, it offers a completely new perspective. Arguably, many branches of economics are very useful to help design policy and improve society's choices. However, there needs to be an understandable mode of communication, which perhaps is not the case. If economics is that important then we need to ask where are economists when you need them?

Where are the Economists?

Around the globe there are numerous contributions of economist in various academic journals, op-eds, magazines, research reports and many other outlets. However, in our part of the world - Econland - we are deprived of real economist's contributions. This is prevalent at many levels such as public policy, professional societies and business organizaitons.

... in our part of the world - Econland - we are deprived of real economist's contributions.

This may be driven by naivety of the importance of economics as a study and what it has to offer. It it could also be attributed to the lack of talent in the field. It is also possible for all practicality that would be economists simply do not engage enough. Ultimately, the role of the economist in society has been highjacked by non-economists.

To use some of the economics jargon, we ask why is this outcome sub-optimal? For one economists spend time and energy to develop their analytical skills and adapt them to given challenges. Non-economists do not necessarily possess those skills. In fact, non-economists scratch the surface and are satisfied with broad 'normative' analysis of the world. Another issue with non-economists is fallacy of analysis and conclusions. Economists are trained to ask critical questions and always second guess their results. Non-economists often assume correlation is causation. This is not say there is ill intention as much as nativity and presumption of human behavior that often leads to less optimal choices. Arguably economists themselves suffer from such fallacy at times.

To answer our question where are the economist? Well it would appear that economists need to learn to take back their domain and work better with others to understand the intertwined nature of human behavior. In Econland, we need real economist talking to non-economist and better informing society of the opportunity cost of choice, whichever that way be.