I was reading Professor Mankiw's blog the other day, and in this particular post Mankiw lists the economists who have agreed to contribute to the NYTimes, and asks the question on how his readers think the list could be more balanced, if possible.
Unfortunately this response was labeled anonymous, but I think he brings up an interesting point. Here's some food for thought:
UNFORTUNATELY, MANKIW'S QUESTONS ARE BIASED BY DISCIPLINARY MYOPIA.
It is unclear to me why "diversity" only includes the political spectrum of ECONOMISTS. Social policy should not be governed by one discipline, but also be the viewpoints of 1) political scientists, 2) sociologists, 3) anthropolists (strange, huh?), 4) epidmiologists, and 5) doctors.
It does not make sense that a degree in finance will give us any knowledge in social policy any more than a degree in, say biology. In too many cases economists speak out of their ambit of knowledge.
Here's a question that isn't asked: Why is there a council of economic advisors, and not a council of social science advisors?
Contrast the disciplinary myopia with a country like Brazil, or like France. In those countries, the state of society (not just the economy) is consulted all the time by the wealth of non-economists.
Why don't we have THAT kind of diversity? I challenge anyone to answer that question! A propelsis: 1) economists are not better trained at statistical methodology, as least when talk about the creme de la creme, 2) they are not less biased, though that has often been used as a reason to discount anthropologists (yet social policy is often driven by illustrative anecdotes and detailed descriptions, whether factual or not. E.g. remember the myth of the welfare queen? Imagine if we had a detailed ethnorgaphy to fill that empirical lacuna).
Instead of wimperings about why Becker or Cutler, or some other Harvard economist isn't in the loop, why don't we provide some "real" diversity in terms of social policy. I don't have very much sympathy.
Like I have said before, for mosts economists, you know what they are going to say if you know who they are. Is that the make of an empirical science, or of demagoguery?
How can the "facts" or the reality of the social necessitate "balance" of viewpoints? Shouldn't such viewpoints or assessments exist independently of the person making them? Just a question to be provocative.
