Inequality in Economic History

I found the initial reactions to Piketty’s Capital interesting because assessments of the empirical analysis seemed to line up immediately on ideological grounds before anyone had a serious opportunity to evaluate so much evidence. People on the right were certain it was wrong; people on the left were sure that it was right. Both were clearly basing their conclusions on what they wanted to be true. This was particularly clear in the uncritical use of his work by the New Historians of Capitalism. See this video (41 minutes in) where Jefferson Cowie says how bad Piketty is as a historian and follows that with how he still uses his numbers blindly. What ever happened to critical evaluation of the evidence? In NHC it has been replaced by the ability to repeat clever phrases like “tyranny of the market” and “cash nexus.”  

Enough of my rant against NHC. Capital was a big book; it takes time to really evaluate the empirical work in such a book. Well, time has passed, and some of that work has now been done. In general, it does not seem to support Piketty.

Richard Sutch challenges the reliability of many of the estimates for the U.S.

Carlos Goes fails to find empirical support for the central hypothesis about inequality and capitalist development.;

Does this mean that Capital was a bad book? I don’t know. Some big idea books are serious efforts to make sense of the available information. Sometimes they turn out to been wrong in fundamental ways. I think examples of this might be Doug North’s Economic Growth of the United States (overemphasis on trade, especially, interregional trade), Fogel and Engerman’s Time on the Cross (underestimated use of coercion and overestimated nutrition), and Pomeranz’s Great Divergence (divergence appears to have started earlier than Pomeranz thought). All of these were reasonable attempts to make sense of the available information, but they prompted a lot of research which ultimately contradicted at least some of their conclusions. All of these authors, while not necessarily accepting all the critiques of their work, acknowledged when subsequent evidence persuasively contradicted their earlier interpretations. The ultimate test for Piketty will be how he responds to the critiques of his work that have provided more evidence on inequality over time.

In any case, if Piketty’s analysis of inequality is flawed, what should you read. I would suggest Lindert and Williamson’s  Unequal Gains: American Growth an Inequality. The book is very dense with descriptions of how the estimates were developed. If you are short on time you can get a preview at VOX or read Vincent Geloso’s review at Essays in Economic and Business History.

Open Access in History and Economics

The Exchange had a post the other day about a special issue of the Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era focusing on the history of capitalism. Several of the papers looked interesting. Unfortunately, I discovered that I only have access to JGAPE with a one year delay. My wife teaches at American University, and their access also has a one year delay. I then took the next step of searching for open access versions of the papers: working papers or papers presented at seminars. I put the title and author of each paper into Google Scholar. I did not find an open access version of a single one of the papers. I then tried the same thing with the first seven papers in the August issue of American Economic Review. Granted, this is a small and unscientific sample. Nevertheless, the result is consistent with the impression that I have had for a while that economics is more open access than history. What I am not sure about is why. I think economists believe that there is no cost to providing open access to working papers, and, as best I can tell, there is not. Do historians believe there is a cost? Is there? I know there are concerns about open access to dissertations reducing the demand for a book derived from that dissertation. Are these concerns well founded? And what about journal articles? 

Women and Econ Blogs

Claudia Sahm blogged about the lack of women among econ bloggers

I looked at intelligenteconomist.com’s list of top economic blogs an only found four (out of one hundred)

Carola Binder

Jodi Beggs at Economists Do It With Models

Lynne Kiesling (with Michael Giberson) at Knowledge Problem

Muriel Niederle at Experimental and Behavioral Economics

Economic History from the Last ASSA

Historical Perspectives on Financial Crisis, Banks and Regulation 
Presiding: Gary Richardson 
Crisis and Collapse in the Long Run: Some Microeconomic Evidence Raghuram Rajan and Rodney Ramcharan
What Ends Banking Panics? Gary Gorton and Ellis Tallman
Interbank Markets and Banking Crises: New Evidence on the Establishment and Impact of the Federal Reserve Mark Carlson and David Wheelock 
Commercial Bank Leverage and Regulatory Regimes: Comparative Evidence from the Great Depression and Great Recession Christoffer Koch, Gary Richardson and Patrick Van Horn 
View Webcast

Critiquing Robert J. Gordon's Rise and Fall of American Growth (Panel Discussion)
Presiding: Robert Shiller
Gregory Clark
Nicholas Crafts
Benjamin Friedman
James T. Robinson
View Webcast

Evononsense and Homo Paleas

I was just looking at Evonomics.com, an important new source of misinformation about economics. Numerous essays there talk about how economic analysis is based on the study of homo economicus, a creature that is only concerned about its own selfish material interest.  

More specifically:

“homo economicus… is the character that inhabits the economics texts, and the computer models that are the silent dictators of analysis and policy. Econ, as I will call him, is a myopic integer of self-seeking, who goes through life with a relentless and unfailing calculus of personal loss and gain. He has no social affinities, is oblivious of social context, and has no capacity or inclination to think of anyone besides him or her self.” (Jonathan Rowe at Evonomics)

It is easy to see how foolish those economists are and what a waste of time economics is. There is only one small problem. The imaginary being is not homo economicus, it is homo paleas. Homo paleas is an imaginary economist created by people who want to criticize economics without having to go to the trouble of studying what economists actually do.

Economists generally do analyze models in which people are assumed to maximize utility, but these people can get utility from anything they like. No real economist says that you can’t get utility from someone else’s pleasure, or, for that matter, someone else’s pain.

What have economists actually said?

Adam Smith wrote in his Theory of Moral Sentiments that

“How selfish soever a man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though h derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Well, Smith was special. It must have been after him that economists starting studying homo economicus. What did Alfred Marshall say?

Alfred Marshall wrote in his Principles of Economics that

“Thus though it is true that "money" or "general purchasing power" or "command over material wealth," is the centre around which economic science clusters; this is so, not because money or material wealth is regarded as the main aim of human effort, nor even as affording the main subject-matter for the study of the economist, but because in this world of ours it is the one convenient means of measuring human motive on a large scale. If the older economists had made this clear, they would have escaped many grievous misrepresentations; and the splendid teachings of Carlyle and Ruskin as to the right aims of human endeavour and the right uses of wealth, would not then have been marred by bitter attacks on economics, based on the mistaken belief that that science had no concern with any motive except the selfish desire for wealth, or even that it inculcated a policy of sordid selfishness.” (Book I Ch. II).

Okay, it wasn’t Marshall. Maybe economists now think that people can’t care about others.

In 2011, Andersen, Ertac, Gneezy, Hoffman and List explained that

“where economics provides its most basic predictions revolves around how people should respond to changes in incentives—pecuniary or nonpecuniary (Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini 2000)—not whether subjects have fairness, spite, or altruistic proclivities.” (Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games)

Because they analyze the actions of the imaginary homo paleas rather than actual economists, these critics of economics think they have shown the weakness of economics when they point out that people vote, or give to charity, or are willing to incur a cost to punish economic experiments are concerned with fairness. The trouble is that there is actually nothing in economics that suggests a person cannot care about other people.

Economics theory does not suggest that people should not give to charity. It suggests that people will do it more if you lower the cost by, for instance giving a charitable deduction.

Some New Stuff

Here is the program for the Development of the American Economy section of the NBER summer Institute. There are links to many of the papers.

Here is the program for a conference on the history of capitalism. Although I have been critical of much of what has been labeled the new history of capitalism, there are some interesting looking papers here. I don't plan to go to the conference, but I look forward to seeing Sharon Murphy's work on bank financing and slavery at some time in the future.

Here is Jeffrey Beall blogging about a new paper on open access publishing (particularly the fraudulent form of it) by my colleague Margaret Ray. He provides a link to the paper.

Based upon this tweet, it appears that someone at Cornell's History of Capitalism Camp was talking about Mary Eschelbach Hansen's work on bankruptcy. She is, by the way, my favorite economic historian.

Stanley Fish on Historians Against Trump

The New York Times published a remarkably dishonest essay by Stanley Fish. Fish attacks a group of historians for publishing a statement opposing Donald Trump.

Fish begins by making clear that, while he is specifically attacking these historians, his remarks really apply to all professors. Ironically, the historians make clear in their letter that they are not all professors. Even casual examination of the list of historians reveals that many are not professors. But Fish won’t let details like that get in his way. (quotes from Fish are in bold)

“PROFESSORS are at it again, demonstrating in public how little they understand the responsibilities and limits of their profession.”

Fish claims that

“They suggest that they are uniquely qualified to issue this warning because they “have a professional obligation as historians to share an understanding of the past upon which a better future may be built.”

This is a really nice touch. Fish has taken a quote from the letter, but introduced it with a lie. Nowhere in the letter is it explicitly or implicitly suggested that historians are uniquely qualified. To the contrary, the letter refers to other groups that have already issued similar letters.

This is followed by some more cutting, pasting and inserting by Professor Fish. He is, after all, Professor Fish, which is the reason is being published in the New York Times.

Or in other words: We’re historians and you’re not, and “historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable.” Therefore we can’t keep silent, for “the lessons of history compel us to speak out against Trump.”

I’ll just include this statement about extraordinary hubris for the enjoyment of anyone that knows who Stanley Fish. I wouldn’t be surprised if Fish himself didn’t get a good laugh out of it.

I would say that the hubris of these statements was extraordinary were it not so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the possession of an advanced degree with virtue.

He then returns to his assertion that the historian’s claim to be uniquely qualified.

The claim is not simply that disciplinary expertise confers moral and political superiority, but that historians, because of their training, are uniquely objective observers: “As historians, we consider diverse viewpoints while acknowledging our own limitations and subjectivity.”

In fact, no such claim of uniqueness is made in the letter. They don’t say that all historians oppose Trump and they don’t say that only historians are in a position to evaluate Trump. They simply state that they are historians and that their position as historians has led them to believe that they should oppose Trump.

Historians do have to consider diverse viewpoints and acknowledge their own limitations and subjectivity. They don’t all do it well. I spend plenty of time criticizing bad historical scholarship, but that criticism presumes that historians should consider diverse viewpoints and acknowledge their limitations and subjectivity.

In the interest of acknowledging my own subjectivity, I probably should acknowledge that I hate Trump with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns. But the evidence that Fish is lying is clear. Simply read the letter.