Tim Harford in an article praising the power of Schelling's insights he nevertheless states that the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Thomas Schelling was curious because Schelling did not do any "research". In this context he quotes the rational choice sociologists James Coleman as saying about Schelling "If you ask me what he does for a living, I have to answer that he lives by his wits." Robert Solow said something similar on the occasion of Schelling's retirement from Harvard. I know these comments are supposed to be witty, but they do posses a sting to them that is intellectually damaging.
Several years ago I was involved in a panel with Robert Solow, Paul Davidson and Donald Dewey debating the scientific merits and ideological importance of the Austrian school of economics. I wrote a position paper entitled "Why Are There No Austrian Socialists?: Ideology, Science, and the Austrian School." Other representatives of the Austrian camp at that session included Roger Koppl, Sandy Ikeda, and Bill Butos. Solow made the following remark and it was delivered with his stinging wit: "I know science when I see it, that is found in chemistry books and journals. Austrian economics isn't that. And I know ideology when I see it, that is in the speeches of Newt Gingrich. Austrian economics isn't that either. So what is Austrian economics. Well, it seems to me it is theology. The way the arguments are presented and discussed in say The Review of Austrian Economics is similar to the way things would be discussed in a theology journal." With that he sat down with a smile. Davidson said something about non-ergodic systems and how it is impossible to defend the free market based on equilibrium models, and Dewey focused on the difficulties of getting scientific funding for economics and stressed that by this account Austrians have actually competed very effectively with the Chicago and Virginia Schools. But Solow's statement was out there like a "pink elephant" in the room. Bill Butos jumped on that occasion to challenge Solow and Solow backed off a bit. I tried to respond with a bit of imminent criticism focused on capital theory and Solow got very agitated --- exclaiming in back to back sentences that (1) he was "the worlds leading expert on the two good world", and (2) he "never did damage to reality in his models."
The problem with our discussion was that the different demarcation lines that he and I drew over what was to be termed science was never really engaged. The battle for the mantle of science is an on-going one, and we cannot abandon this battle. Those who believe they are doing science will always believe they will have good reasons to dismiss those who they believe are not doing science even when those who are disregarded are recognized at having the superior insight on this or that issue. [Remember the scene in the movie Splash when the discoverer of the mermaid questions the ethics of the leading 'scientist' now studying the mermaid?! He is told that he was never considered part of the 'community' and perhaps he should now go and search for a unicorn.]
This attitude is insidious and the behavior it engenders is odious in my opinion. When I was a fellow at the Hoover Institution and it was announced that the great historian Robert Conquest had won the Jefferson Award, I heard Tom Sargent mutter something to the effect ---"He is a scholar, we don't need scholars, we need scientists." This was actually the first time I have ever heard that distinction drawn so sharply and in a tone so disparaging of the one. When I was leaving NYU I wanted to move to another university in NYC, such as CUNY. I gave a job seminar and was hoping to land the job, but someone on the inside said that a senior faculty member used that very same distinction to dismiss me. We don't need scholars, we need scientists. [The fact that the department doesn't really have what would be considered a strong scientist by those standards in the bunch shouldn't stop anyone from making such statements!!!]
Unfortunately, Thomas Schelling's work sometimes get discussed in this manner by his peers in the elite of the economic profession. That is sad, but Schelling nevertheless triumphed. The best explanation as to why is found in the Harford piece:
If you want to win a Nobel prize without doing technical research, Mr Schelling's winning formula is simple: find hidden patterns or puzzles of everyday life that nobody else can see, show how they illuminate the biggest questions of the day and write it all up in the most sparkling prose.
Israel Kirzner's brilliant work, on the other hand, is often dismissed by fellow economists unjustly. William Baumol, for example, in his work will refer to work in economics that discusses entrepreneurship (in which case Kirzner's work gets a mention) and scientific theories of entrepreneurship in which Schumpeter and his work is mentioned (but Kirzner's is conspicuously absent). But Kirzner's work actually represents a more thorough scholarly treatment of the history of the idea, and a more subtle understanding of the theoretical importance of the entrepreneur in understanding how markets work.
As economists our discipline is cheapened when we dismiss the work of individuals whose temperament and style of thought does not conform to 3x5 card notions of scientific methodology. We should be better than that as professional economists and judge work on a variety of margins. I am the last person you will hear bad mouth wittiness in economic writing and argument, but stinging wit can be interpreted as either good natured fun or destructive dismissals. In the case of Schelling the criticisms have been interpreted more or less as good natured ribbing for someone who bucked the system. In the case of Kirzner, however, we have a destructive dismissal of an economists whose insights into the operation of the market economy are vital to our understanding.
Comments