Why Are Some Economic Sciences Being Overlooked in Reopening Economies?

Economic theory often positions itself as a science, a field grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous analysis. However, the reality is that the scientific rigor of economics is often compromised, particularly when it comes to the debate surrounding the reopening of economies. This article explores the dichotomy between hard and soft economics, and why certain scientific insights may be overlooked in favor of politically and ideologically driven arguments.

The Hard and Soft Divide in Economics

Ha-Joon Chang, a renowned economist, highlights this divide by distinguishing between 'Hard Econ' and 'Soft Economists' (Chang 2020).

Hard Econ: A Scientific Discipline

Hard Econ, as Chang describes, is the scientific approach to the discipline. This branch of economics relies on empirical data, mathematical models, and rigorous statistical analysis to investigate and understand economic phenomena. It aims to provide objective insights into the workings of economies, free from ideological biases. For instance, a hard economist might conduct trend analysis on economic performance during pandemics to understand the impact of lockdowns and reopening strategies.

Soft Economists: Ideological Advocates

Soft Economists, on the other hand, operate from a fundamentally ideological stance. They often cherry-pick existing research to support their preconceived notions and agendas, thereby undermining the scientific integrity of the field. These individuals often dominate public discourse, but their work is frequently critiqued by more rigorous scholars. For example, a soft economist might selectively cite studies that support laissez-faire policies, while ignoring those that highlight the importance of government intervention in economic recovery.

The Impact on Reopening Economies

The economic policy decisions made during the reopening of economies are often informed by these differing perspectives. Here, soft economists with a political or ideological agenda can have a disproportionate influence over public and policy discourse.

Overemphasis on Ideology

Policy decisions surrounding the reopening of economies are frequently based on political and ideological considerations rather than empirical evidence. For instance, some politicians and economists may favor rapid economic reopening to reduce unemployment, even if it means risking public health. In contrast, more cautious approaches that prioritize public health measures may be overlooked or criticized for their potential negative economic impacts.

The Role of Soft Economists in Public Discourse

Soft economists often dominate public forums such as TED talks and YouTube videos, where their more accessible and often ideologically charged narratives can reach a wider audience. These platforms allow them to avoid the rigorous scrutiny they would face in academic settings. Consequently, their viewpoints are more likely to be aired and accepted by the general public, overshadowing the more nuanced and evidence-based arguments of hard economists.

The Need for Balanced Discourse

For a well-informed and balanced reopening of economies, it is imperative that both hard and soft economists engage in a productive dialogue. This would ensure that policymakers have access to a range of perspectives and evidence, leading to more informed and effective decision-making. Including hard economists in public discussions and policy debates can help counteract the influence of ideologically driven soft economists.

Conclusion

The field of economics, while often claiming to be a scientific discipline, is fraught with biases and ideological influences. This dichotomy is especially evident in the debate surrounding the reopening of economies. A more balanced approach that incorporates the insights of both hard and soft economists is essential for developing effective and equitable economic policies. By fostering a more open and evidence-based discourse, we can ensure that policies prioritize both economic recovery and public health.