The Agenda

Brief Thought on David Brooks and Mechanistic Macro Models

Boy, people have really misunderstood David Brooks’s recent column on how to think about the economy. David has been accused of dismissing the importance of evidence and numbers, which doesn’t strike me as a fair characterization. There’s some confusion here, and David is partly to blame. The real problem is that many of the models we rely on to guide economic policy mechanistic models that are actually recursive in nature. 

Here is David:


The economic approach embraced by the most prominent liberals over the past few years is mostly mechanical. The economy is treated like a big machine; the people in it like rational, utility maximizing cogs. The performance of the economic machine can be predicted with quantitative macroeconomic models.

These models can be used to make highly specific projections. If the government borrows $1 and then spends it, it will produce $1.50 worth of economic activity. If the government spends $800 billion on a stimulus package, that will produce 3.5 million in new jobs.

Everything is rigorous. Everything is science.

Here is Ezra Klein on why liberals like numbers:


Liberals, by contrast, think businesses are worried about the future, but they think the problem is that there’s no demand and too much tail risk in the economy. Why invest in more capacity before the employment levels necessary to support that capacity come back? Why stop hoarding cash when Ireland could default and force another panic in the credit markets?

The preference for numbers that Brooks identifies comes because, well, these arguments have numbers and evidence behind them.

Much depends on which models we’re talking about. Some of these arguments have numbers and evidence behind them, and some of them wrap themselves in a cloak of numbers and evidence that conceal irresponsible and unwarranted leaps, as we saw during the debates over ARRA and PPACA. 

Remember what happened when three researchers at the University of Michigan, Matthew Shapiro, Claudia Sahm, and Joel Slemrod, offered empirical evidence suggesting that the Making Work Pay tax credits didn’t work very well? As my colleagues at Economics 21 noted, there was some very odd and unconvincing pushback from Jared Bernstein. The models used to predict that the Making Work Pay tax credit would prove successful were based on experiments that used the responses of college students under laboratory conditions to predict how a diverse array of U.S. households would behave. 

And then there were the models that informed the larger fiscal stimulus effort. Here is how John Cochrane of the University of Chicago’s Booth School described them:


Bernstein and Romer’s CEA report on the stimulus famously used a multiplier of 1.5 to evaluate the effects of the stimulus. They took this multiplier from models (p.12). But the multiplier is baked in to these models as an assumption. They might as well have just said “we assume a multiplier of 1.5.”

More deeply, why use the multiplier from the model, and not the model itself? These “models” are after all, full-blown Keynesian models designed purposely for policy evaluation. They have been refined continuously for 40 years, and they epitomize the best that Keyesian thinking can do. So if you believe in Keynesian stimulus, why use the multiplier and not the model?

The answer, of course, is that they would have been laughed at – nobody has believed the policy predictions of large Keynesian models since Bob Lucas (1975) destroyed them.  But how is it that one multiplier from the model still is a valid answer to the “what if” question, when the whole model is ludicrously flawed? If you believe the Keynesian model, let’s see its full predictions. If you don’t believe it, why do you believe its multiplier? [Emphasis added.]

This is what I believe David was getting at — empirical evidence is not the problem. Rather, the problem is overreliance on crude, mechanistic models. I use the term overreliance advisedly. Mechanistic models can serve a valuable purpose. But they’re a starting point, particularly when we’re entering new, unexplored terrain. And a dynamic economy is always generating one-off events. I actually think the Making Work Pay experiment was a decent idea. It’s good to see how a number of insights from behavioral research play out in practice. But the broader project of fine-tuning a complex economy is destined to run into all kinds of unanticipated problems, hence the virtue of decentralization. 

Ironically, David is making what I take to be a Keynesian point: psychology matters, and quantifiable risk is meaningfully different from Knightian uncertainty. 

(Jim Manzi has written a great post on this theme that has attracted some slightly obtuse replies.) 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular


Ezra Klein’s Intellectual Demagoguery

Ezra Klein wants you to know that he doesn’t think Sam Harris is a racist. “I’m not here to say you’re racist, I don’t think you are,” Klein explains in a two-hour debate with Harris on the latter’s podcast, Waking Up. “We have not called you one.” No, not at all. Klein is telling the truth ... Read More

The Scholarship/Activism Balance — A Rejoinder

The Martin Center recently published an article by sociology professor Fabio Rojas, in which he argued that professors should maintain the right balance between their teaching and scholarship on the one hand, and activism on the other. In today's article, the Center's Jay Schalin pushes back somewhat. Schalin ... Read More

The Book Comey Wanted to Write

Making the click-through worthwhile: the book James Comey had wanted to write, Facebook starts to feel useless to some writers, an infamous D.C. city councilman manages to make everything worse, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign finds its wish granted. What Did James Comey’s First Draft of A Higher ... Read More
Film & TV

Pro-Life Feminist

My paisana at the Human Life Review are hosting an event in NYC on Thursday, May 3, at the Sheen Center (18 Bleeker Street) for the airing of director Jim Hanon’s half-hour documentary, Pro-Life Feminist. After the viewing, he’ll join the trio of castmates -- Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, Aimee Murphy, and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Good News for Pompeo

Looks like he's in, as he should be. But this fight has been a hint of what life will be like for Trump if the Democrats somehow take the Senate -- they'd refuse to confirm anyone for anything. Read More