I already knew since long that people think that economists don't agree on anything. One of the things I have learned from Twitter is that apparently we are also an ideologically monolithic group (who supposedly use maths only to hide our ideological motives) 1/
Obviously, both statements cannot be true. Actually, both are false. A first point to be made is that there are indeed a lot of points on which economists (except those on the far left & right fringes of the field) agree 2/
But these points are mostly methodological. For instance: clearly distinguish positive and normative analysis (Weber also proposed this in sociology); saying that people will do A, B and C when confronted with incentives X, Y and Z doesn't mean we think this is "morally" right 3/
Be transparent in all your assumptions and it all the steps you take to move from your assumptions to your conclusions. In practice, this involves a lot of maths, not to obfuscate the reasoning, but precisely because it makes the reasoning more transparent 4/
Many people will laugh at this, but maths actually makes us very vulnerable. you cannot hide nonsense for long if you have to explain things mathematically. But the fact that Hayek, Coase & Olstrom won the Nobel Prize shows that the field is also open to other approaches. 5/
Another point that is not very controversial is that, in empirical work, one should be very careful in not claiming causality when you have found correlation. Actually, one could claim that this is the very core of econometrics 6/
I could probably continue with a lot of other examples, but my main point is: even when economists disagree, they have a common language for debate and they can understand each others' arguments. Most debates I have seen take place in good faith 7/
So why disagreements? The world is complex, so any statement about it inevitably requires simplifications. The simplifications we use depend on numerous factors: the available data, our a prioris, sometimes technical methodological choices 8/
Besides that, there are points where the disagreements reflect indeed differences in value systems. But the wonderful thing about economics is that it provides an analytical framework that is very transparent about these differences (ok, if you bother to understand the theory) 9/
A lot of time is actually devoted in microeconomics to explaining different normative frameworks, and their logical implications. And, because of the maths, economists are indeed pretty good at identifying paradoxes in normative analysis 10/
Take just one, highly topical, issue: discount rates. William Nordhaus's Nobel Prize has brought a discussion to the fore that is indeed key in discussions about climate change: how should we value future welfare compared to present welfare? 11/
Economists know that there are really two separate questions: (a) what explains why market interest rates are what they are (b) are market interest rates the relevant metric for discount rates used in normative statements? 12/
At the end of the day, you will find that the discussion boils down to: should we allow the preferences of current generations, as expressed in market interest rates, as a basis for decisions that affect generations who do not yet have a voice? 13/
If we don't think that the market metric is relevant, who should decide what the relevant metric is? And, you see, these are not questions economics can answer. But at least it provides a framework to think clearly about the topic.14/
I have just been kindly reminded that I need to put my socks in the drawer, so I will stop here 😉
