World Bank: The Impact of Economics Blogs

What about the impact of economics blogs about the impact of Economics Blogs?

Some stats about this blog would be interesting

Total views broken down by country etc

It’s quite easy to get Google Analytics up and running, and it gives very impressive reports out of the box

Well, if writing blogs keeps economists off the street and out of the pubs then I am all for it!

Some might observe that some views on here are far too entrenched for attitudes to be transformed 😉

Are you talking about the posters or the commenters?

I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I wouldn’t have encountered this interesting WB research paper without logging on here. For this, much thanks.

And a suggested conclusion of the paper, “that there may be an undersupply of good economics blogs”, rings true. As I have pointed out previously – and this is the case particularly in the Irish context – a large number of people put their trust in priests and bishops, elected politicians (and those they appointed to formulate, implement and administer policy) and bankers, respectively, to provide moral guidance, to govern in the public interest and to manage their businesses responsibly. That trust has been destroyed and there is a demand for an explanation of what went wrong and what needs to be done to put it right.

And, because most of the failings were in the area of economic policy and governance, this might explain the popularity of this blog and the rise of the so-called ‘celebrity economists’ seeking to satisfy this public demand for an ‘explanation’ and a plausible narrative that might lead, without too much pain or effort, to the sunlit uplands.

But what of the supply provided here? We are all hugely indebted to Philip and his fellow contributors as the opportunity cost is high. The public enlightenment benefit is enormous. For example, probably the most useful post was Karl Whelan’s link to some undergraduate lecture notes that highlighted the difference between bank liquidity and solvency.

Although correlation does not imply causation, it is interesting that quite a few of the more prolific and insightful contributors have been absorbed in to the ‘government machine’ – and there are hints from some of an unrequited desire to be so absorbed. In some cases, this has terminated their contribution; in other cases, it has clearly limited their ability to contribute and the nature of their contributions; and indeed in some cases, contributors have been already ’embedded’ and, thereby, comprised or conflicted in some way – the paucity of posts may provide some evidence of this.

From the perspective of Government (and of the government machine) this is a very effective and efficient way of managing and, where desirable, of closing down public debate. It also encourages the debate to be channelled to focus on the behaviour of external parties over whom we have no control and to divert attention from policy and regulatory dysfunction that require urgent remedy – and is fully within our control.

The balance of posts is skewed hugely in the direction of the former category with very little attention paid to – or subsequent reader interest in – the latter category. This, again, is very much in the interests of Government and the government machine.

And this, perhaps, is not surprising. Much economic analysis is based on axioms and on stylised descriptions that deviate so much from reality as to be useless – and, unfortunately, in many cases to be supportive of the Neocon hegemony. And it is even worse in a small economy where everyone in any position of authority or influence seems to know everyone else in similar positions.

For example, at the moment, there is huge activity going on behind the scenes in the context of the Troika’s requirements for the Government to tackle the inefficiencies and monopoly profit gouging of the private sheltered sectors, to come up with semi-state privatisation proposals and to conduct a detailed assessment of the electricity and gas sectors. But you’d get no hint of this from reading this blog.

Interesting paper, if a little narrow in its focus. What draws the likes of me to sites like this is a quest for information, quality analysis and a different perspective on the issues to conventional political spin and the framing agendas of the mainstream media. Economics blogs need to preserve a balance between campaigning on issues and providing access to quality information that broadens perspective. Too much campaigning and they risk alienating the political and administrative elites whose decisions they seek to influence; even if the respective campaigns open up access for economists to the mainstream media, confer ‘celebrity’ status, at least temporarily, on certain individuals, enhance career prospects of others etc. The question is, once this crisis has passed, will economists find they are once again classified as mere purveyors of the ‘dismal science’ or have they, through the use of social media, found their voice and carved out an enduring presence in the arena of public debate?

@ludwig @hoganmahew

It is possible that you are both misinterpreting the data on tea bags. Maybe those with large stocks in their kitchens hold regular Tea Parties!

The impact of blogging is hard to predict. When presented with the phrase “romantically linked with Angelina Jolie” Google’s first thought, apparently, is of Australian economist John Quiggin.

@ Hogan, Ludwig, Peter, etc

“The same study also found that people who have teabags in their kitchen press are significantly more likely to drink tea than those who do not have teabags in their kitchen press.”

You are also overlooking negative teabags.

This frequently occurs in student households, where some students are teabag ‘horders’ and others are teabag ‘spenders’. This leads to the vexed issue of teabag debt.

Teabag hoarders, may in fact drink less tea than non-tea buyers (tea-totallers), as they accumulate into order to put tea spenders in their debt.

Tea-debt forgiveness is a long standing painful subject, and is often attempted through nationally accepted (and efficiently regulated, Paul Hunt) bag conversion rate: EG one standard bag = one round of washing up mugs, enough butter for a single slice of toast, provision of a set of lecture notes, etc.

The tea-bag debt laffer curve is very interesting as it appears to go nowhere as the tea-bag debt mounts, then as the ‘tea-bag debt’ hits the equivalent of the smallest box in a Spa, Centra or similar, it may suddenly hop to payment in full.

If though, this point is passed and the debt is not paid, then suddenly the tea-bag hoarder may find themselves dangerously exposed to the further removal of cans of supermarket-brand lager from the fridge, yesterday’s spagetti bolognaise, the last of the corn flakes, etc, as the debtor hits the ‘f*ckit’ point, and goes all out.

A full systemic collapse occurs when the deposit from the house can no longer be obtained, due to the disastrous feuding and destructive behaviour of the tennants.

Then the ECB steps in.

@hoganmayhew @11:50am

Google’s attempt to automate confirmation bias is to be applauded, tiring personal cognitive error may soon be a thing of the past. Taken together with the kind of political calming apparently undertaken by Twitter we will soon all hold utterly unshakeable beliefs about things that do not matter.

Football may soon be redundant.

@hoganmahew

“So ECB = Everyone Craves Bags?”

No, ECB = European Carpet Baggers. Probably a very appropriate term.

@EWI

What’s with the “PR shill”? We’ve all got to earn a living somehow. What business are you in? Saintliness? Trudging the streets at all hours, bringing hot soup to the homeless? Setting up schools in third world countries?

@OMF

I couldn’t possibly answer that question 🙂

@PR Guy,

EWI is just a troll of the flat-headed variety. Best advice is to ignore him.

@veronica

Sounds like good advice. I notice that the TLA never answered my question.

And there I was moithering about the ability of the government machine to emasculate economic blogs and to channel, manage or close down debate that might get too close to the bone and, look, we can do it ourselves without any external pressure or guidance. Silly me.

@Paul Hunt

I imagine “the Germans” brought in with the IMF bailout have been noting how things are done in Ireland and comparing with best international practice. The absence of a comprehensive legal framework , the tolerance of ineptitude, the lack of catastrophe planning , the steps that lead up to the bank guarantee, the hail mary policy context and so on. I imagine there will be an assessment at some point where the representatives of the nation will be told that Ireland can’t afford such behaviour in the future. That the margins that permitted it in the past have disappeared. Because it’s someone else’s money.

@grumpy,

Your insights nearly always hit the mark – without being unjustifiably cynical, but I think you’re off the pace a tad on this 🙂

A good friend, with a few more miles on the clock, once advised me never to underestimate the slipperiness of an Irish civil servant. I’m well aware that civil service ‘slipperiness’ is a universal phenomenon, but the Irish variety has its own distinctive attributes. Perhaps some are derived from centuries of dealing with the English imposition of rules and regulations without consent – presenting a superficial nodding, grinning, smiling expression of compliance (with ‘mental reservations’ fortifying the devout) while doing every thing possible behind the scenes to bend and break the rules and frustrate their application.

It is possible that this learned behaviour has become so ingrained that we are doing it to ourselves – with the inevitable results we see around us.

And as for John McHale (and others of his integrity and calibre), I fear they will grind him down. It’s their raison d’etre. It angers me when I see people with demonstrable professional capability and integrity ensnared in the webs of deceit they spin. (The ESRI on energy policy is a perfect example.) But the professionals involved do have a choice; though, perhaps, making that choice is too costly in terms of damage to one’s livelihood.

@seafoid,

Agree, but see above. Our external masters may propose, but the government machine will dispose.