Pred dvema dnevoma sem objavil zapis o tem, zakaj se ekonomisti o ničemer ne strinjamo. Dani Rodrik pa je objavil komentar o tem, o čem se ekonomisti strinjamo in zakaj to ni nujno dobro. Po njegovem je divergentnost mnenj dobra za družbo, da se ne uspava ob lažnem občutku varnosti, temelječem na videzu, da nekaj res vemo.

Heterogenost mnenj je, nasploh v znanosti, dobra in koristna, ker omogoča, da se na daljši rok izkristalizirajo znanstvene “resnice”. Ni pa nujno dobra za nosilce ekonomske politike, ki so ob tem zbegani, zaradi česar je Dwight Eisenhower nekoč dejal, da si želi “enorokega ekonomista“. Toda v takšni kakofoniji divergentnih mnenj običajno zmagajo tista z najmočnejšo ideološko in populistčno komponento ali izrazito politično pripadnostjo. Kar pa ni tako dobro. Poglejte denimo samo v smeri škodljivega vpliva Mencingerja ali Križaniča v zadnjih dveh desetletjih.

The Initiative on Global Markets, based at the University of Chicago, periodically surveys a group of leading academic economists, of varying political persuasions, on the issues of the day. Its latest roundup asked whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan helped to reduce unemployment in the United States.

Officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the plan entailed government spending of more than $800 billion on infrastructure, education, health, and energy, tax incentives, and various social programs. Implemented in the midst of an economic crisis, it was the classic Keynesian response.

The economists were virtually unanimous. Thirty-six of the 37 top economists who responded to the survey said that the plan had been successful in its avowed objective of reducing unemployment. The University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers cheered the consensus in his New York Times blog. The virulent public debate about whether fiscal stimulus works, he complained, has become totally disconnected from what experts know and agree on.

In fact, economists agree on many things, a number of which are politically controversial. The Harvard economist Greg Mankiw listed some of them in 2009. The following propositions garnered support from at least 90% of economists: import tariffs and quotas reduce general economic welfare; rent controls reduce the supply of housing; floating exchange rates provide an effective international monetary system; the US should not restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries; and fiscal policy stimulates the economy when there is less than full employment.

This consensus about so many important issues contrasts rather starkly with the general perception that economists rarely agree on anything. “If all the economists were laid end to end,” George Bernard Shaw famously quipped, “they would not reach a conclusion.” Frustrated by the conflicting and hedged advice that he was receiving from his advisers, President Dwight Eisenhower is said to have asked once for a “one-handed economist.”

…

Disagreements among economists are healthy. They reflect the fact that their discipline comprises a diverse collection of models, and that matching reality to model is an imperfect science with a lot of room for error. It is better for the public to be exposed to this uncertainty than for it to be lulled into a false sense of security based on the appearance of certain knowledge.

Preberite več v Dani Rodrik, Project Syndicate