I share much of his cynicism about the profession, but I think he’s missing the main way (in my experience) that mathematical models are useful in e

Economath Fails the Cost-Benefit Test - by Bryan Caplan

submited by
Style Pass
2024-11-17 20:30:14

I share much of his cynicism about the profession, but I think he’s missing the main way (in my experience) that mathematical models are useful in economics: used properly, they help you think clearly, in a way that unaided words can’t.

I’ve heard such claims a thousand times.  But after enduring four years of Princeton economath, and publishing two pure theory pieces ( here and here), I am convinced that most economath badly fails the cost-benefit test.

Let’s start with a truism: Some people have a comparative advantage in economic intuition; others have a comparative advantage in mathematical economics.  The superior path to economic understanding varies from person to person and topic to topic.

Now let’s move to an obvious fact: Out of the people interested in economics, 95% clearly have a comparative advantage in economic intuition, because they can’t understand mathematical economics at all.  Even professors in top undergraduate economics programs (MIT and Caltech aside) avoid economath because they know their students can’t hack it.

What about the the remaining 5% who do understand some mathematical economics?  An optimist would point out that this 5% does the lion’s share of original economic thinking.  Perhaps economath is vital scaffolding for intellectual progress despite its low pedagogical value.

Leave a Comment