Knowledge that Transforms

Ran Abramitzky's book, The Mystery of the Kibbutz: Egalitarian Principles in a Capitalist World, tries to answer the questions of why the communal kibbutz worked so well in Israel's formative years and what limits its current success in modern Israel. Initial ideological commitment and the special circumstances of Israel's founding led to unusual success when combined with well-thought-out rules on behavior and entry. Over time, the commitment to socialistic income sharing has not worked so well, given modern technology and global commerce. The author links up these ideas to the broader issue of organizational structure but misses out on some opportunities to test the ideas further.

In their recent book, Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman (2019) argue that economics went wrong when it abandoned the Classical liberal firewall that demanded separation of scientific theory from the art of policy making. Colander has long advanced the idea that applied economics should be classified neither as positive nor as normative economics. Instead, it should be placed in a third category, “the art of economics”; art requires vision and acumen in addition to knowledge and technique, and is thus more akin to engineering than the natural sciences. The primary contribution of Where Economics Went Wrong is thus to advance Colander’s general argument through the specific story of Chicago economics. This essay make two interconnected claims. First, while I agree with Colander and Freedman that applied economics would benefit from more art and less calculation, the Chicago school is not the best vehicle by which to tell a convincing story. Second, a thicker history of the Chicago school reminds us of the importance of institutions and rules, not only for understanding the economy but also for thinking about how economists have constructed our discipline and how internal institutions and incentives affect our behavioral choices.

Designing marketplaces in complex settings requires both novel economic theory and real-world engineering, often drawing upon ideas from fields such as computer science and operations research. In Discovering Prices: Auction Design in Markets with Complex Constraints, Milgrom (2017) explains the theory and design of the United States’ “incentive auction” that reallocated wireless spectrum licenses from television broadcasters to telecoms. Milgrom’s account teaches us how economic designers can grapple with complexity both in theory and in practice. Along the way, we come to understand several different types of complexity that can arise in marketplace design.

In this essay, I reflect on textbook writing after three decades of participating in the activity. I address the following questions: What perspective should textbooks take? What is the best approach to teaching microeconomics? What is the best approach to teaching macroeconomics? How does the content of the introductory course evolve? How much material should textbooks include? Are textbooks too expensive? How is digital technology changing the market for textbooks? Who should become a textbook author?

This paper revisits Friedrich Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom, on the seventy-fifth anniversary of its publication. Though the book is well-known, its arguments are often mischaracterized. The paper traces the origins of the book, noting the various people and arguments that Hayek was responding to, and places it in the context of its times. The structure of the book is explored and some common criticisms addressed. Finally, it is shown how, after its publication, the book took on a life of its own.

The Coase theorem is one of the most influential and controversial ideas to emerge from post–World War II economics. This article examines the theorem’s origins, diffusion, and the wide variety of uses to which it has been put by economists and others over the sixty years since Coase published “The Problem of Social Cost.” Along the way, we explore the ambiguity and controversy surrounding the theorem, develop a Coase theorem that is valid as a proposition in economic logic, and probe the implications of all of this for the use of the Coase theorem going forward.

Does academic economic research produce material of general scientific value, or do academic economists write only for peers? Is economics scholarship uniquely insular? We address these questions by quantifying interactions between economics and other disciplines. Changes in the influence of economic scholarship are measured here by the frequency with which other disciplines cite papers in economics journals. We document a clear rise in the extramural influence of economic research, while also showing that economics is increasingly likely to reference other social sciences. A breakdown of extramural citations by economics fields shows broad field influence. Differentiating between theoretical and empirical papers classified using machine learning, we see that much of the rise in economics’ extramural influence reflects growth in citations to empirical work. This growth parallels an increase in the share of empirical cites within economics. At the same time, some disciplines that primarily cite economic theory have also recently increased citations of economics scholarship.

We make the case for a shift in what students learn in a first economics course, taking as our exemplar Paul Samuelson’s paradigm-setting 1948 text. In the shadow of the Great Depression, Samuelson made Keynesian economics an essential component of what every economics student should know. By contrast, leading textbooks today were written in the glow of the Great Moderation and the tamed cyclical fluctuations in the two decades prior to 2007. Here, using topic modeling, we document Samuelson’s novelty and the evolution of the content of introductory textbooks since, and we put forward three propositions. First, as was the case in the aftermath of the Great Depression, new problems now challenge the content of our introductory courses; these include mounting inequalities, climate change, concerns about the future of work, and financial instability. Second, the tools required to address these problems, including strategic interaction, limited information, principal–agent models, new behavioral foundations, and dynamic processes including instability and path dependence, are available (indeed widely taught in PhD programs). And third, as we will illustrate by reference to a new open access introductory text, a course integrating these tools into a new benchmark model can be accessible, engaging, coherent and, as a result, successfully taught to first-year students. Deployed to address the new problems, following Samuelson’s example, the new benchmark provides the basis for integrating not only micro- and macroeconomics but also the analysis of both market failures and the limits of government interventions.

This paper brings together methodological, theoretical, and empirical analysis into the framework of linguistic diversity. It reflects both historical and contemporary research by economists and other social scientists on the impact of language on economic outcomes and public policies. We examine whether and how language influences human thinking (including emotions) and behavior, and analyze the effects of linguistic distances on trade, migrations, financial markets, language learning, and its returns. The quantitative foundations of linguistic diversity, which rely on group identification, linguistic distances as well as fractionalization, polarization, and disenfranchisement indices are discussed in terms of their empirical challenges and uses. We conclude with an analysis of linguistic policies and examine the trade-offs between the development of labor markets and the social costs that they generate in various countries.

This paper first documents trends in employment rates and then reviews what is known about the various factors that have been proposed to explain the decline in the overall employment-to-population ratio between 1999 and 2018. Population aging has had a large effect on the overall employment rate over this period, but within-age-group declines in employment among young- and prime-age adults also have played a central role. Among the factors with effects that we can quantify based on existing evidence, labor demand factors, in particular increased import competition from China and the penetration of robots into the labor market, are the most important drivers of observed within-group declines in employment. Labor supply factors, most notably increased participation in disability insurance programs, have played a less important but not inconsequential role. Increases in the real value of state minimum wages and in the share of individuals with prison records also have contributed modestly to the decline in the aggregate employment rate. In addition to the factors whose effects we roughly quantify, we identify a set of potentially important factors about which the evidence does not yet allow us to draw clear conclusions. These include the challenges associated with arranging child care, improvements in leisure technology, changing social norms, increased use of opioids, the growth in occupational licensing, and declining labor market fluidity. Our evidence-driven ranking of factors should be useful for guiding future discussions about the sources of decline in the aggregate employment-to-population ratio and consequently the likely efficacy of alternative policy approaches to increasing employment rates.