The Value of Economic Communication

George Mason University is a unique culture among economic departments.  Scientific contributions to the discipline of economics are valued, but not exclusively.  Instead, the culture at GMU has always valued interdisciplinary scholarship, writing to the general public, public policy analysis, and teaching of basic economics.  This is a department that has been the home for over 20 years of James Buchanan and Walter Williams, and today is the home of Thomas Stratman (a leading figure in contemporary public choice analysis) and Tyler Cowen (perhaps the top economics blogger and columnist for the NYT).  We can boast of being the home to individuals who regularly publish in the AER and others who regularly appear on NPR.  Vernon Smith and Russell Roberts call GMU economics their home.  In fact, at GMU many of the top academics by standard measures are also those who cherish their role as communicators of economic ideas to the widest possible audience.  Our Nobel Prize winners -- Buchanan and Smith --- publish op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and Tyler Cowen has not only published in the AER and JPE, but has been the feature of several articles in the popular press for his work on culture and also his ethnic food guide.

GMU is indeed a very unusual place in terms of the respect given to a variety of intellectual activities as economists.  I think this is because we share in common as a faculty a commitment to the truth content of economics.  I heard Gary Becker once claim that the most important lesson he learned from Milton Friedman was that economics was not just an academic game to be played by clever people, but instead was a discipline of extreme importance for understanding the real world.  This lesson Becker learned from Friedman is also what the people at GMU are committed to --- and several of them might have learned it from Milton Friedman as well since they studied at Chicago, with with Friedman influenced economists at UCLA, UVA or VPI.  When I was a student in the early 1980s at GMU, I was told by both Dwight Lee and Thomas DiLorenzo that the goal for an economist was to publish 3 papers for every topic you were exploring: an academic paper, a policy paper, and an op-ed.  DiLorenzo constantly stressed that we should be getting our research topics by looking out the window instead of looking on the blackboard, and that it was no sin to write clearly and forcefully about economic affairs.

One of the really great communicators of economic ideas is currently visiting GMU for the next month --- David Henderson.  Today he gave a wonderful talk on "How to Communicate Economic Ideas" to some faculty and graduate students.  David stressed not only topic choice and gave tips on good writing for the general public, but also stressed professionalism in meeting deadlines and commitments.  It was an informative and inspiring talk.

To underline just how interesting the environment at GMU can be consider that this term we have as visitors William Easterly (who taught a seminar class on economic development), Mario Rizzo (who taught a course on Ethics and Economics), and David Henderson (who is here finishing up the editing of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, etc.).

And I think out of this mix, you get students who upon finishing their graduate studies are committed teachers, dedicated scholars/scientists, and hard-working writers of economics that focus on the craft of writing and publish journal articles, chapters in books, books, policy papers, and op-eds.  Just look at the range of intellectual activity that recent graduates such as Ben Powell have engaged in since leaving GMU.  He published all 3 of his dissertation papers in refereed journals, and published new papers in journals such as JEBO, JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH and PUBLIC CHOICE, but he also directed a center on entrepreneurial innovation at the Independent Institute, was instrumental in developing one of the most innovative graduate programs at the MA level at SJSU, edited books, published op-eds, wrote policy papers, appeared on radio and TV, and gave numerous public lectures ranging from real estate policy to the plight of the least advantaged in developing economies.  Powell is following the Lee/DiLorenzo model far better than I ever could and in the process has developed an international reputation as one of the really dynamic young free market economists. 

Ben will now be taking his considerable talents to the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.  This is a devastating loss to the program that Ben built at SJSU, but a huge coup for Suffolk.  David Tuerck at Suffolk proved to be more entrepreneurial than the folks at SJSU.  Creative destruction --- it happens, and it is beautiful.  Hopefully the folks at SJSU will respond to the competition and realize what they need to do to rebuild their program to build on the remaining strengths of Ed Stringham, Ed Lopez, and Jeff Hummel.  They need to hire a replacement for Ben (no easy task) and they need to build on those faculty assets that had students from around the US and the world looking at SJSU as a viable graduate school option.  It will be very interesting to see what SJSU does next year in the academic job market.  SJSU at its best had faculty committed (like we do at GMU) that views economics not as an academic game to be played by clever people, but a discipline essential to our understanding of the world around us.  But academic myopia can get in the way of acting consistently on that commitment --- either because of petty jealousy, ideological insantity, or just incompetence.  I wish SJSU the best in trying to fill the void left by Ben's departure in a productive way.  But I also want to congratulate Ben, David Tuerck, and Suffolk University for valuing excellence in the discipline of economics and the ability to communicate economic ideas among scientific peers, public policy decision makers, students, and the interested layman. 

Comments

[Econometron]

Where do I sign up? Nice sales pitch!

[ottlakerambler]

But that's just it, econometron or whatever it is that you call yourself: so much of this IS a sales pitch these days.

Pete, you know how much I love you. But "pr" and "science" have become so fused -- esp. in the blogosphere -- that I no longer know what to think of the "value free" nature of this entire enterprise.

We now live in a world of hype, from every ideology and every angle, from every corner of professional life. I guess it's inevitable, but that doesn't mean I, with the shred of individuality that I might have left, must embrace it.

[Peter Boettke]

This was not meant as a sales pitch but instead an enthusiastic description of the reality of the situation here at GMU. We are unique and I think I have found a way to explain that uniqueness. It doesn't have to do with ideology, it has to do with the intellectual attitude that we hold in common.

Sorry if it came across as a sales pitch. My enthusiasm sometimes gets the best of me. But I am trying to state as objectively as I can what sets GMU (and its students) apart from competitors in research and graduate education.

[Matt C.]

Who cares! Sell the hell out of the program! If you don't truly believe in your "product" you wouldn't "brag" about it. You would sheepishly say, "I am proud of the students that GMU has produced." Not to mention, it helps those who are looking at other options to GMU to know where they might go to get a similar type of education.