Arnold Kling disparages Freakonomics at EconLog (click the link on my "better ECON blogs" list). I take issue in the eigth comment:
I read your full review of Freakonomics and am a bit baffled. First, Heckman's quote: abortion and academic achievement aren't important topics?
Next, why do you want the public to read dreary academic papers and economics books (I'm assuming that you endorse Wilson's suggestion)? Many, many, many people who have misunderstood economics (e.g., oh, you're an economist? so what is the stock market going to do?) have had their eyes opened about the breadth of the field.
And, in all the pieces I've read about Levitt, I never have heard him suggest that this is how economics should be done. On the contrary, he seems to appreciate standard economics topics and analysis. If there is a quote that I've missed, please post it.
I had some reservations myself about the analysis in Freakonomics(see my a-bit-less-serious review: john-whitehead.blogs.com and click on the books category) but I tried to read it for what the book is, and not what it isn't. It IS the first economics book my wife (a sociologist) has read all the way through. She disagreed with much of it but found it interesing and important enough to fuss at me (again) for being an economist. It isn't a serious piece of academic work (although the background research is) and economists shouldn't be so uptight about about the analytical gaps and Dubner stuff that has been successful in selling so many books.
P.S. Note that Levitt's results have caused quite a bit of discussion and alternative theories among social scientists, including yourself. Um, isn't that typical of some of the best academic research (i.e., there aren't many silver bullet studies that cause people to nod their heads and scream yes!). Oftentimes this type of discussion takes us further down the road to the point of half-way understanding human behavior.
His full review is at Tech Central Station.
Comments