Monday, October 13, 2008

Krugman's Nobel   [Jonah Goldberg]

Man, I'm getting it from all sides. Liberal fans of Krugman insist that he's a great economist so he must be a great columnist. Conservative foes of Krugman say he's a buffoonish columnist who has said so many silly things, including about economics, the Nobel is a joke. Well, I'm with my Productivity Guy on this one (he's a professional economist). He writes:

Jonah

I agree that Krugman’s Nobel was inevitable, and if it’s based entirely on his pre-NYT pundit career entirely deserved. The Nobel Committee focused on his international trade and economics of geography work, which is certainly important but many other economists were working the economies of scale-intl trade turf around the same time (e.g. Brander, Spencer and esp. Helpman, who he arguably should have shared the prize with). I think his work on international finance and speculative currency attacks is even more original and Noble-worthy.

However, his NYT opinions have been disgraceful and nearly negate the value of his earlier career. Compare the popularizing work of Milton Friedman to Krugman and it’s clear how far popular discussions of economic issues has fallen. Friedman certainly had a point of view, but his Newsweek columns in the 70s and 80s had an objective, almost tutorial tone. His conclusions and policy prescriptions flowed directly from a well-defined, neoclassical framework any professional economist would recognize. If you disagreed with Friedman (and many respected economists at the time did), he still defined issues in terms that led to a focused and reasonable debate. There was no incoherence or incompatibility between Friedman’s academic and popular writing, because he brought the academic standards of rigor and impartiality to the mass media.

Krugman couldn’t be more different. He routinely fudges facts and, when called on it, refuses to admit error. He never presents both sides of an argument dispassionately and then uses reason and observed experience to discern the truth. He consistently demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with him. His shrill, hysterical voice trivializes honest differences and invites counter-attack rather than reasoned rebuttal. Plus he’s not even well-informed on many issues that fall outside his academic specializations.

I know the Nobel committee doesn’t judge entirely on the basis of someone’s career, but Krugman’s Nobel should make them rethink this. He continues to use his NYTimes column in a way that diminishes the intellectual standards of his field. This does significant, long-run harm to what the Nobel Committee calls “Economic Sciences,” perhaps entirely offsetting the value of Krugman’s academic contributions.

Update: From another professor of economics and e-friend:

Jonah,

I'm not sure that most economists believe "that Krugman really is a very serious and respected economist" in your words.

Instead, I would say most economists believe that Krugman really WAS a very serious and respected economist.  He truly deserved this prize for his past work, but I would say a large part of the profession finds his later career as a pundit as an embarrassment to the economics profession, and wish he would have stuck to what he did best.

10/13 11:59 AMShare