Would you rather be known as politically influential, famous among the intellectual elite, or making a lasting scientific contribution?

This is a variant of the question James Buchanan would often ask a graduate student.  The "correct" answer was of course to make a lasting scientific contribution --- to be read not in your lifetime, but centuries after your death.

Among economists perhaps nobody exemplified the opposite of this in the 20th century more so than John Kenneth Galbraith, who passed away on Saturday.    The NYT obituary does an excellent job conveying Galbraith's influence on our political and intellectual culture.  The claim is made that Galbraith is the most widely read economist in the history of the discipline.  Richard Parker's biography, John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics is also an excellent source for studying the impact of Galbraith had on the intellectual and policy debate.

But Galbraith's claim to scientific influence is dubious at best.  Parker tries to make the case that Galbraith's ideas are now influencing modern economic discussions in the scientific literature like behavioral economics.  Among heterodox economists Galbraith is no doubt an icon, but as someone who made a lasting contribution to the mainline of the discipline it is hard to agree with Parker.  Galbraith achieved influence and fame, but did not make a lasting contribution to the advance of the discipline of economics.  He did set a standard for writing that we should aspire to achieve, but his core ideas are either restated Veblen, warmed over Keynes, or Marxist platitudes.  It is not clear that any of his ideas are original enough to warrant that he be placed in that company of critics of the market economy.  But there can be little doubt that between 1950-1970, he perhaps more than anyone popularized the teachings of Marx, Veblen and Keynes and made them acceptable to generations of Harvard students and members of the intelligentsia in the English speaking world.

On a personal note, I met Galbraith and shared dinner with him one night in the early 1990s.  I was prepared to hate the evening only to be completely charmed by the man and his stories of JFK and India, of battles with Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, or a profession which has succumbed to too much formalism, disrespect for history, and an inability to address the institutional contingencies of our age.   It was an amazing evening and it was one of the important moments which taught me that you cannot divide the world neatly into those who are stupid, those who are evil, and those who agree with me. Instead the world is full of charming, brilliant, and good hearted individuals who just happen to hold opinions opposite of the ones I do.  Understanding results from delving into those reasons for differing opinions without succumbing to the cheap tricks of attributing disagreement to bad motives and to lack of intelligence among opponents.

BTW, my very first professional paper in economics (first written in 1984, but published in 1989) was inspired by reading Galbraith and attempting to negotiate between Galbraith and the institutionalists on the one hand, and the Austrians on the other.

Comments

[Steve Horwitz]

Here's a question: who is the free market Galbraith? What I mean by that is who is a well-known among the public free market economist who has also made very few contributions to the discipline? I have an answer: Walter Williams. It's also interesting to think about whether Tom Sowell fits that description as well - he might be more analogous to JKG come to think of it.

[K. R. McKenzie]

"Instead the world is full of charming, brilliant, and good hearted individuals who just happen to hold opinions opposite of the ones I do."

I'm not sure it's differing opinions. I think it's more differing preferences for realizing truth.

[Swimmy]

I wouldn't place Sowell as analogous to Galbraith. Sowell has made many important contributions: His work on the impact of culture in explaining disparate group performances, his work on intelligence and race, and, especially, his work on affirmative action programs around the world--all are well-researched and often overlooked in public discourse. Williams' strength, too, lies in his studies on race and economics.

But it is an interesting question. I could name several essentially worthless free market economists if it weren't for the "well-known among the public" qualifier.

[Rafe]

I am with Swimmy on this, of course it depends what you mean by contributing but by any standard short of the very great innovators Sowell has made a huge contribution to the elimination of error and the clarification of issues. This is a review of his book on the impact of affirmative action around the world.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/revaffirm.html

[Sleeper]

Also agree. In addition to the work cited above, didn’t Sowell also do a study in support of Fogel’s “Time on the Cross” theme? Also, Williams did a nice study of labor unions in South Africa. The best review of Galbraith’s (non) contribution to mainstream economics is still Scott Gordon’s 1968 AER article, “The close of the Galbraithian system,” which says, “His books will be of scholarly interest to the library moles of the future who will use them in their attempts to understand the complex intellectual agitation of a society that is powerful beyond measure and yet is cataleptic with doubt and fear.”