In a recent post on his Substack, Bet On It, Bryan Caplan shared an excerpt from his latest book, Unbeatable.
The excerpt is brief but worth the read in its entirety.
One particularly striking paragraph reads:
When it comes to mainstream economics versus free-market economics, I’ve spent enough time in both spheres to understand their inhabitants intimately. I’m not just familiar with the current attitudes of these two groups of economists, but I also know their intellectual journeys. Despite their so-called “neoliberal” reputation, labeling mainstream economists as “free-market” or “free-market fundamentalists” is laughable. The truth is, very few of these economists have ever harbored genuine free-market sympathies. And while they may have bagged a few Nobel prizes, calling free-market economists “mainstream” or even “dominant” in their field is equally ludicrous. Just because your colleagues cite your work doesn’t mean they hold you in high regard.
This brought to mind an experience from my teaching days at the Naval Postgraduate School about two decades ago.
In my early years there, I adopted a new approach in the classroom. I candidly told my students that if they became friends and invited me to a poker game after the course, I would have to decline because I possess the opposite of a poker face. I explained that when discussing topics like the minimum wage, my facial expressions would betray my disapproval of the politicians behind such policies—and more importantly, my frustration with their disastrous outcomes. On the first day, I openly identified as a small-l libertarian. To my surprise, when I reviewed the end-of-quarter evaluations, not a single student criticized my admission of bias; instead, they found it refreshing to see a professor drop the pretense.
Now, regarding that incident from 20 years ago: as we delved deeper into the course, I illustrated the benefits of free trade, explained how rent controls lead to housing shortages and poor quality, and discussed how price controls on gasoline resulted in those infamous gas lines their parents endured. My students, military officers typically aged 28 to 40, were globally aware and politically savvy.
One student remarked, “Given what we’re learning, I bet there aren’t many Democratic economists.”
I acknowledged his perspective but clarified that the actual ratio of Democratic to Republican and Libertarian economics professors is about 4 to 1.
His reaction was one of shock, mirrored by many in the room. How could this be?
I struggled to provide a satisfactory explanation. I suggested that many of these individuals enter economics from a mathematics background, viewing it as a technical discipline. They hadn’t undergone the same Ph.D. process I did at UCLA, and often focused on minute aspects of economics. Perhaps I was being a tad generous in my assessment, attributing it solely to math rather than a broader trend of specialization.
In a stroke of insight, Bryan Caplan hits the nail on the head with his observations:
The typical trajectory of a mainstream economist often begins with a conventional left-leaning intellectual upbringing in a comfortable home. While their parents and schools lean center-left, this complacency leaves them unsettled. They profess beliefs, while the budding economist feels a deeper conviction. Upon entering college, they discover economics and realize the world’s complexities. Eventually, they conclude that a few conventional left-wing views may be exaggerated or incorrect—rent control being a prime example. To the uninformed, rent control appears to be a reasonable solution for ensuring affordable housing; however, introductory economics reveals its detrimental effects: shortages, decreased quality, and a reduction in available units. Politically, acknowledging that a few leftist views are flawed often marks the limit of their transformation. A former conventional teenage leftist now emerges as a slightly contrarian twenty-something leftist intellectual.
However, for many students who fit this profile, intellectual curiosity is merely a phase. They often drift into non-academic careers, ultimately resembling their center-left parents and perhaps forgetting that a few leftist beliefs are indeed overstated or flawed. The future mainstream economists, however, persist. After completing their undergraduate studies, they proceed to graduate school, where they acquire two new skill sets.
First, they spend two years wrestling with mathematical economic theories. Though this material is challenging, it often feels too detached to significantly alter a graduate student’s policy views. Advanced theory presents myriad obscure reasons for market failures, yet most students are already aware of standard market failures from their undergraduate training. If they begin with concerns about imperfect competition, asymmetric information, or externalities, discovering more niche market failures rarely diminishes their faith in markets.
Second, unless they choose to specialize purely in theory, grad students immerse themselves in one or two bodies of highly specific empirical research. This focus may occasionally influence their policy views within those narrow areas, but the overall impact is limited. Given the vast amount of research available, most economists end up with only a handful of specialized topics. In nearly every other domain, mainstream Ph.D. students graduate with the same policy positions they held entering graduate school. With minor adjustments, they evolve from conventional teenage leftists to slightly contrarian twenty-something leftists, and ultimately to slightly contrarian mature leftists. In most areas outside their specialties, they disconnect their professional work from economic policy, often switching from researcher mode to their slightly contrarian left-wing intellectual personas when policy discussions arise.
During my time at UCLA, my fellow graduate students and I frequently encountered enlightening moments as we navigated the material, leading us to discuss this very conundrum. A senior student, Ted Frech (also known as Harry Edward Frech III), articulated it well: intelligent economists often overlook the direct relationship between economics and real-world implications. I still remember his witty remark: “When Paul Samuelson returns home and his wife mentions that steak prices rose by 50 cents a pound, his response is, ‘Shoot the butcher.’”
In a postscript, I noted where I believed Bryan meant “less” instead of “more.” He clarified that he indeed meant “less,” emphasizing in an email:
My point is that graduate school does not make leftist economists more leftist.
