Economists have slowly eroded their reputation as an intellectual class. Is there a solution?
What did economists do to lose their public authority?
E conomists face a legitimacy crisis. Not long ago, a politician could brag, “Economists say my policy will increase job prospects for the middle class,” and the audience would nod in agreement at the successful appeal to authority. Those days are long behind us.
Today, the typical economist is considered a sock puppet for a political party, corporate interests, the woke, white supremacists, or some confusing combination of all of these. In casual conversation, I was called a “shill for the banks” for merely trying to articulate why medieval usury restrictions are inappropriate in a modern economy. Since “liberation day,” the near consensus among economists for free trade has been punted for bizarrely aggressive reciprocal tariffs, which seem to come in and out of existence.
The legitimacy crisis among economists is far from the first for an intellectual class. In a.d. 313, the emperor Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The end of persecution was a cause for celebration, but it fundamentally restructured the incentives of the empire’s Christian population, especially its leaders. A bishop under persecution made a strong signal that he held the church’s best interests in mind. His position of authority was necessarily a sacrifice. After legalization, a member of the episcopacy could be pilloried as a wealthy, urban Christian who cared more about his status in patrician networks than he was a righteous successor of the apostles. Though there were many honest bishops in the fourth century, it was hard for the lay Christian to tell the true from the false. The many councils of the fourth century often led to more discord than unity.
An ecumenical council of economists would be similarly impotent. All living Nobel laureates in economics could sign a petition denouncing Trump’s tariff policy, and public opinion would not budge an inch because economists have slowly eroded their reputation as an intellectual class.
What did economists do to lose their public authority? First, many are more interested in the success of various political or social movements than honestly assessing economic policy. For example, 23 Nobel economists signed a letter endorsing Kamala Harris’ nonexistent economic policy. Macroeconomists in particular may temper their criticisms of the Federal Reserve, since it is one of the main sponsors of research on monetary policy. Economists commenting on climate change lean into the dominant narrative without much reflection.
Second, economists may be providing honest opinions but remain insensitive to the costs borne by those they do not associate with. Jobs lost from a more globalized world were more locally concentrated than most economists predicted, even if net employment effects were small. Most prominent economists live outside these regions, and their support for free trade is read as an indifference to various regional concerns. Three decades of broad support for free trade and globalization is not seen as evidence of scientific consensus, but rather as indifference to (or even contempt for) the common man. Trump’s tariff agenda did not create the legitimacy crisis. Instead, it is the fruit of the slow rot that’s accumulated over decades.
The economics profession is now in the same position as the medical profession. When the supposed consensus in the early phases of the Covid-19 pandemic was shown to be mistaken, intentionally or not, all medical professionals took a reputational hit, whether they were a part of the consensus or not. The man on the street could hardly distinguish the doctor who is paid off from the one who is serving patients well. Those who were skeptical about mRNA vaccines thought they might as well expand their skepticism to all vaccines. They would rather have a political activist make health decisions for them, seemingly only because he has consistently disagreed with the medical establishment for years. His lack of expertise is worth the gamble, as the perceived risk of insider corruption is worse. In a similar vein, the public justly doubts economists because of their track record. Even when we’re right, our professional reputation has been shot, and the public is left with no guide to discriminate the righteous from the wicked.
The primary explanation for protectionism used to be poor economic literacy and concentrated interest groups. But with economists in a legitimacy crisis, tariffs are now an anti-signal, leading people to claim things like “I support tariffs because the established economists tell me not to.” The underlying reasoning is that if mainstream economists push for something, then it must be somehow against my interests. Protectionist pundits repudiate the mainstream economists of yesteryear and distance themselves from their supposed corruption. The logic of the situation, however, does not prevent today’s populist, protectionist pundits from being accused of the same sorts of corruption, once the policies inevitably fail. Nothing that they are doing insulates them from accusations that they will become part of a new irredeemable, entrenched class.
What’s an honest free trader to do? Christians in the fourth century turned to desert monastics, individuals who sacrificed their whole worldly comfort to grow closer to God. Their independence gave them an impartiality they used to judge the character of bishops and emperors. How can economists regain such respect? First and foremost, remain honest. Don’t cut corners or abandon truth-telling. Second, strive for material independence. Third, encourage your audience to keep you to your word, and to hold other economists equally accountable. Perhaps the current media landscape is too chaotic for anyone to position themselves as a policy monastic, but these sacrifices are the only chance to restore our public credibility.