Is there creative accounting in behavioural economics?

The Financial Times has an excellent article on the future of behavioural economics.

Despite the fact that it is an incisive piece on a form of applied psychology that won Daniel Kahneman the Nobel Prize and has revolutionised political thinking, the FT has entitled the article ‘Behavioural economics and public policy’, to ensure it doesn’t arouse any passions which could bias your understanding of the text.

Ignore the title though, and it’s a fascinating and astutely critical piece on how the promises of behavioural economics haven’t always delivered and where it needs to go next.

So popular is the field that behavioural economics is now often misapplied as a catch-all term to refer to almost anything that’s cool in popular social science, from the storycraft of Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point (2000), to the empirical investigations of Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics (2005).

Yet, as with any success story, the backlash has begun. Critics argue that the field is overhyped, trivial, unreliable, a smokescreen for bad policy, an intellectual dead-end – or possibly all of the above. Is behavioural economics doomed to reflect the limitations of its intellectual parents, psychology and economics? Or can it build on their strengths and offer a powerful set of tools for policy makers and academics alike?

It’s by economist Tim Harford who also does good things on the Twitter.
 

Link to FT article ‘Behavioural economics and public policy’.
Link to alternate copy on Tim Harford’s blog.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,056 other followers