Politics

公众为何会无视专家的意见

Jul 1, 2016 Jean Pisani-Ferry

发自巴黎——在英国公民于6月23日前往投票站决定自己的国家是否继续留在欧盟之时，各界就一直不乏要求留欧的建议。外国领导人和道德权威人物都表达了对退欧后果的深切关注，而经济学界则一面倒地警告说，离开欧盟将带来极大的经济成本。

然而这些警告却遭到了人们的无视。公投前由YouGov网站发布的民调点出了原因：“脱欧”选民们完全不信任那些提供建议的人。他们不希望依赖那些政治家，学者，记者，国际组织或智囊团去做出自己的判断。而脱欧运动的领导者之一，极可能接替戴维·卡梅伦担任首相的现任司法大臣迈克尔·戈夫（Michael Gove）则直言不讳地指出：“这个国家的人们已经受够那些专家了。”

人们往往会将这种态度简单解读为情绪战胜了理性。然而英国的这种模式却有着惊人的共性：在美国，共和党选民罔顾专家意见，提名唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）为本党总统候选人；在法国，极右翼国民阵线的领导人玛丽娜·勒庞（Marine Le Pen）被专家们嗤之以鼻，却拥有强大的民众支持。在世界各处都有一大批公民对那些专家学者们心怀敌意。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 67 Comments on this article

Matthew McCarthy Jul 24, 2016

It is actually a bit more severe than this implies: the cognoscenti have become a threat to democracy. I'm not trying to exaggerate here, I'm basing this statement on the specific details of the Lisbon Treaty. The terms of the earlier agreements that provide the foundation of the EU transfers of sovereignty require referendum in order to be accepted - this maintains democratic grounding for the project. Transfers of sovereignty were proposed in the constitution for Europe, which was rejected at referendum. The policymakers in Brussels decided that the transfer of sovereignty was needed, and asked the heads of government to sign off on it in the treaty of Lisbon. There were differences between the constitution and the treaty of Lisbon, but the treaty still had the transfer of sovereignty that required a referendum. Now you can still catch statements about how it was really just the requirements of an integrating world, where it was actually the requirements of how the policymakers wanted the world to integrate. The policymakers who pushed for the Lisbon Treaty refused to be limited by democratic constraint.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Wright Jul 10, 2016

Simple argument & probably correct. In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that there has been an enormous growth in the body of 'experts' in the western world since the 1970s, simply as a result of the enormous growth & availability of many 'civilised' aspects of society - i.e.: education & educational establishments, government funded advisory bodies such as 'think tanks', increasing levels of government (e,g.: EU Commission ON TOP of national & local institutions) & increasingly intrusive arms of government (social services + family courts, for instance), which almost by definition - cannot succeed in their apparent mandates to make everyone's life better.

Who employs these experts - that is, how do they make a living?? Why, educational institutions, 'think tanks' and a huge variety of governmental bodies - all at a cost to the normal 'taxpaying citizen' & one has to admit that they exist in a high-flying type world, impenetrable to the average Jo!

Don't forget that these institutions really do insulate their people from what most people experience as 'normal' aspects of modern life such as the threat of unemployment if tangible results are not delivered. Who on earth, for instance & as a pretty extreme example, decided that EU Commission employees should be exempt from paying income tax??
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mr Econotarian Jul 8, 2016

Economists are unlikely to ever see the problem coming. They missed the real estate crisis, so no surprise they missed the fact that automation as well as outsourcing (due to 50 million Chinese going from near absolute poverty under extreme communism to new factory jobs in freer market manufacturing) would cost about 5 million manufacturing jobs in the US, and finding those workers new jobs at equivalent wages is tough.

The global economy is tough to read, and there will be ups and downs. The best thing economists can do is to argue for the highest level of economic freedom and lowest level of artificial distortion in the market.

The real estate crisis was fed significantly by pro-mortgage tax policy and other pro-home ownership policies (such as extreme NIMBYism to expanding tall apartment buildings in key urban areas like San Francisco). Sure, it may have happened without those policies, but it would not have been so bad.

Economists should push for abolishing the mortgage tax credit, minimum wages, anti-development regulations, Ethanol mandates, and other clearly economically stupid ideas in favor of things like EITC. Help the poor in non-distortionary fashion, don't help the old, don't help the middle class, don't help the upper middle class teenager who wants his/her first McDonalds job.

Increase the quality of schools, even if that takes removing labor unions or brining in for-profit companies. Because the future is not in protected agriculture or UAW union manufacturing jobs, it is in thinking jobs, and our people need to learn to think. The robots are coming, not the Chinese.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Arjun Bhaskaran Jul 7, 2016

One of the most valuable insights from economics is the Kaldor-Hicks compensation criteria. Unfortunately, the various levels of state have abdicated their neutrality and have joined hands with the Gainers and fail to compensate the losers. This endogenous failure causes increased in concentration of economic power and oligarchies, which finally take over the levers of government completely.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 5, 2016

Jean Pisani-Ferry explains why many British voters ahead of the June 23 referendum ignored warnings from economists and experts against possible "significant economic costs" following their "Leave" vote. Indeed, "there had been no shortage of advice in favor of remaining. Foreign leaders and moral authorities had voiced unambiguous concern about the consequences of an exit."
The psychological impact of these warnings had been overseen - Britons don't like being patronised. According to YouGov opinion poll Britsh voters "did not want their judgment to rely on politicians, academics, journalists, international organizations, or think tanks." Michael Gove, Cameron's justice secretary, an avid "Brexiteer" said very bluntly “people in this country have had enough of experts.”
That emotions prevail over "rationality" can also be observed in the US, where "Republican voters disregarded the pundits and nominated Donald Trump as their party’s presidential candidate." In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, despises intellectuals. She, likes Trump and Nigel Farage, enjoys "strong popular support" among working-class nationalists, who are disillusioned with mainstream parties. They long for the return to the good old days when they didn't need to worry about job security and living standards, and they didn't have to compete with foreigners for opportunities.
Indeed, many “Leave” voters "had no trust whatsoever in the advice-givers." Their anger and hostility towards "cognoscenti" stemmed from the loss of faith in "bearers of knowledge and expertise" who failed to predict the 2008 financial crisis. Even "Queen Elizabeth II spoke for many when, on a visit to the London School of Economics in the autumn of 2008, she asked why no one saw it coming." Besides economists are seen as part of the establishment, as depicted in the 2010 movie "Inside Job." There is a popular belief that the elites wouldn't hesitate to betray ordinary people. Indeed, "conomists (and policymakers) tend to look at issues in the aggregate, to take a medium-term perspective," while ordinary people tend to "care more about distributional issues, have different (often shorter) time horizons."
What most economists find unfair is that they have to bear the collective guilt of "only a few of them of them /who/ devoted themselves to scrutinizing financial developments." Since "no one pled guilty for the suffering that followed the crisis," they see "their credibility...seriously dented." Another accusation experts have to face is that they are "biased," and don't have the interests of ordinary people at heart, who resent "globalisation.... mobility of labor across borders, trade openness," etc.
The author says, there are some economists who don't see the downsides of "international integration" through the prism of ordinary people. The third point is that a country enjoys "overall benefits of openness" when its economy is strong, and its citizens tend to be more tolerable of immigration. But hostility arises, when they "experience downward wage pressure," or when their communities can no longer cope with "a scarcity of affordable housing, crowded schools, and an overwhelmed health system." Outrage mounts, when authorities do little to address their grievances.
The only way that "cognoscenti" can "regain their fellow citizens’ trust" is to listen to the concerns of ordinary people, and to experts "from other disciplines." They have to "be humble and avoid lecturing," and base their "policy views on the available evidence, rather than on preconceptions." Moreover "they should change their minds if the data do not confirm their beliefs." There is a tendency that experts "oversimplify their own views," to make them more comprehensible, which can also be irresponsible.
Basically the author is urging academians to cater to the intellectual needs of the masses, who lack higher education. But he has overlooked the human nature, that we often have an expectation-based selective attention. Regardless of our level of education we sometimes ignore or react strongly to what we don't want to see and hear. "Sheer intellectual laziness" is one explanation, mass media plays also a role in robbing us of our ability to understand, think and reason. Ordinary people "who have been hurt put the blame on "technocratic experts" or politicians. But "they could have been spared the pain" had they questioned their own actions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
john mesrobian Jul 5, 2016

Brexit was predictable when you using scionomics analysis. There is a change in mood from positive to negative amongst the voters and masses. If the mood amongst the voters was positive Brexit would have been defeated. A Negative mood is taking hold across the Globe and the so called Experts are ignoring the mood change. Plus people are tired of experts and career politicians. As well as they do not believe many in the press.
- Mr Econotarian Jul 8, 2016
  
  So if this "negative mood" is pervasive, why did Scotland and Northern Ireland vote "remain"?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Muoio Jul 4, 2016

Because they have been wrong for over 36 years....and the major reason is most of the thought is "capitalist-centric" which is fraught with very special interest drivers including war. We simply need a refocus to humanity for protections from this ruthless nonsense. People are the center of nations and the planet itself. We are mad and the end for this nonsense is near and the signs could not be more clear. Get short now and buckle up.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Charles Van Schilt Jul 4, 2016

There's no doubt that this is part of the answer but I don't think it is all. John Ralston Saul in his book 'Voltaire's Bastards The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' argues that these kind of problems are the result of our of our blind faith in the value of reason. He argues, correctly I believe, that over the past 400 years our rational elites have turned the modern West into a vast, incomprehensible, directionless machine, run by process minded experts--Voltaire's Bastard's--whose cult of scientific management is empty of both common sense and morality. Whether in politics, art, business, the military, entertainment, science, finance, academia or journalism, these experts share the same outlook and methods. They have created a language that unlike the wordsmiths of the past speak exclusively to the experts not the public at large. These experts tend as pointed out by Jean to make rational analysis which exclude through personal bias or other factors other points of view which as Jean points need to be included if one wants to really understand and correct the mistakes that have been made in the name of reason. Also, as Saul points out, that the result is a civilization of immense technological power but whose ordinary citizens are increasingly excluded from the decision-making process. So not only are certain citizens being hurt by financial decisions that are made by elites but the elites themselves are using methods that are in many cases lacking both common sense and a reasonable moral standard, so it's no wonder they reject the positions held by the elites since In many cases I do myself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Neil Gundel Jul 4, 2016

People ignoring experts is a broader problem than just economics.
Especially in the U.S., Large swathes of people were willing to ignore medical experts who explained that Ebola did not spread easily and therefore swallowed the GOP's scare tactics leading up to the 2014 elections. They similarly have avoided vaccinating their children in spite of sound medical advice that this is necessary. They similarly allow the GOP to obstruct policies that would address climate change - in the name of science denial.
If anything ties these things together, it seems to be a tolerance of deceptive speech by special interests, oftentimes promulgated by dark money groups masquerading as public interest groups.
This process thrives due to a lazy media that has given up journalism as a profession and taken up "he said/she said" reporting and a focus on stirring up passion instead of revealing truth.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jul 4, 2016

The American revolution also ignored the experts opinion. Actually any revolution did.

Why do people insist in an economic angle on Brexit?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Nikolaou Jul 3, 2016

"For economists, humility also implies listening to people from other disciplines. On immigration, they should hear what sociologists, political scientists, or psychologists have to say about what coexistence in multicultural communities may entail."

Scrap everything after
"For economists, humility also implies listening to people".
Let cognoscenti live in the same neighborhoods as people who complain of being left behind, and a more representative picture will emerge.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Allan Bleiken Jul 3, 2016

If you want an answer to your question, read "How EU Overreach Pushed Britain Out", by Martin Feldstein.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 3, 2016

As it is currently the aniversary of the Battle of the Somme it is appropriate to think of those who lost their lives following instruction from experts. Experts who had full belief in their expertise. Little seems to have changed, experts still make mistakes and still have full confidence in their expertise prior to calamity. You would be struggling to find a disaster where mainstream expertise has been used to justify a policy where at the same time another expert has also warned of the downside risk. Whether it is war such as Afghanistan, building a Japanese nuclear power plant on a tectonic fault, or loosening financial regulations, to prescription drug policy with the current fentanyl epidemic. Usually commercial or political pressure overrules objections. A good example is the promotion of diesel engines by guvnts in the 90s despite evidence emerging that diesel emission microparticulates were extremely dangerous, which of course leads us to the VW fiasco of corrupted data for commercial gain. Why are voters ignoring experts indeed
- Curtis Carpenter Jul 4, 2016
  
  Several good points there.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Greg Wilbur Jul 3, 2016

Another possibility is that people actually find the "experts" incompetent and contradictory. This extends across almost all social domains where there is no real way to validate other than historical back testing. Consider the hyperbole around QE and ZIRP - it is either brilliant or a villainy, implemented by Central Banks who can't even predict the next recession or who saved life as we know it. Hard to choose who is lying or perhaps they are all just incompetent.

As another thought experiment, how many "experts" warned that Globalization would develop China as a serious competitor to the West a short 25 years later.

Perhaps the "experts" aren't wearing any clothes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
julika winkler Jul 3, 2016

"What is needed is more honesty, more humility, more granular analysis, and more refined prescriptions."
Experts are usually people who are in well paid positions. Most have little or no comprehension of what it means to live as an ordinary citizen who has to deal with the fallout of their ' expert ' advice. The fact that none of the perpetrators of the 2008 economic crisis faced legal consequences made for general skepticism among the ' ignorant'.
This is a good article in that the author attempts to dig beyond the usual premise of " blame it on the uneducated masses " .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jul 3, 2016

So, experts should be more charitable to the less gifted. Perhaps. But perhaps the less gifted should also be more careful about the latitude they allow expert institutions under changing circumstances. NATO was once useful, but adventures in Ukraine that provoked counter moves by Russia in Syria and massive refugee flows on both sides were not helpful. All Europe might have benefited from sunset clauses that would have wrapped up a military alliance that had outlived its original purpose. Similarly, independent central banks can be useful in emergency situations but sanctifying that independence can just entrench outmoded ideas and practices, and discourage public action through elected representatives.

In short, a more charitable mindset among experts will always be welcome. But a shorter leash for expert institutions is probably what's needed, particularly under circumstances of expanding globalization.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jamel Saadaoui Jul 3, 2016

Dear readers of PS,

I would like to react to the quotation of Pisani-Ferri on the preconceptions and the empirical Evidences. Pisani-Ferri seems to argue that most of economists and policy makers change their minds when the empirical evidences do not confirm their theories.

The austerity measures inflicted to some southern European countries is a perfect example that show that Pisani-Ferri is wrong on this point. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that show austerity induces a reduction of economic activity during crises, not an expansion of economic activity as professed by the flawed concept of expansionary austerity. So why economists and politicians have not changed their minds. I suspect that some economists wants to maintain their positions and their academic prestige by ignoring the reality... I hope that it will change thanks to a new generation of economist.

I would also like to react about some comments about Islamic civilization. Reducing an entire civilization to violence is, at best, stupid...

We cannot deny that the Islamic world is in crisis. But Westerners should help these countries to move towards a new enlightenment like they did during the Renaissance epoch. And not systematically reject all the values and the positive side of this civilization. Stabilizing the Middle East could be a good way to start. Promoting democratic values and Human rights, by showing that these values are universal, is essential.

Just remember that these do not asked to be colonized. They do not asked to speak English or French. We know that languages shape the way of thinking.

If you want to reduce immigration, promote economic development and cultural modernization of these countries. The Westerners have already provoked extinction of entire civilization like the Incas and other people of South America. It will not happen with the Islamic world. Westerners share the responsibility to stop to sustain undemocratic and illegitimate forces in these countries.

Once these countries will be economically and culturally modernized. The immigration flows will be dramatically reduced for good or for bad...

Please do not forget History in your comments and maybe it could help us all to have broader views on these crucial issues.

Best from an old (but a young man) Keynesian !
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ANTOINE GUGGENHEIM Jul 3, 2016

No humility, no realism. Realist utopia needs a comprehensive knowledge of humanity
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ANTOINE GUGGENHEIM Jul 3, 2016

Problem is the disconnection between rationality and passion both by experts and people as pascal remarked in his time. Mind and Heart cannot go one without the other. Otherwise we are lost
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Markus Hitter Jul 3, 2016

Glad to see an article which tries to find the root cause of the Brexit outcome. Actually, the "second explanation" gets close, but not close enough. Experts are not only biased, they simply have entirely different goals.

Jane and Joe Average simply don't care about global economics. They don't care about Dow Jones, DAX or whatever tries to measure the world's healthiness. They don't care about yet the next multi-billion investor appearing or not. Ms. and Mr. Average care about being happy, they care about sufficient (not a maximum of) wealth, they care about freedom. Entirely different point of view.

German journal "Die Zeit" occasionally runs and article about Buthan, "the country where happiness is the declared state goal". Experts should take a minute or two to think about the distinctions between a state with healthy economics and a state with happy people. Not that we should make the whole world a copy of Buthan, but then they might get closer to what voters think when they put their cross on the ballot paper.
- Peter Lappo Jul 4, 2016
  
  Well said.
  Mr and Mrs Joe Average also care about their friends and families. its not that they dislike strangers but they don't really care for them. Also quite a few of them are not very rich and don't have a lot to loose and most of them aren't nearly as stupid as the experts think.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jan Smith Jul 3, 2016

Excellant essay. Some years ago, an iconoclastic critic of free markets and free trade, Edward Luttwak, observed with appropriate sarcasm that no economist ever has specialized in Pareto compensation.

But of course this is just one source of the pervasive and chronic shallowness of neoclassical economics and neoliberal economic policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jul 3, 2016

In his overconfidence after the Scottish Referendum, David Cameron sought to clinch and bury the divisions within the Tories.
The Economic arguments were singularly overwhelming - and every known Guru guaranteed the obvious.
In the end, David failed to understand the mind set of his little Island - overwhelmed by the Tsunami from Europe.
Freedom to move across Europe was one of the Four Cardinal Freedoms - Goods, Services, Capital and People.
English was the second language of 2/3 of Europe - The East and The South took the First flight they could to London.
By law, Britain as a signatory, welcomed an endless stream - Ellis Island was too far away, England would do.

Good faith was responsible for incorporating the Four Freedoms in European Union - but the flood unleashed was endless.
And Economics did not understand the human costs of assimilation in a little Island - America Australia Canada 10 times larger.
Unable to win the arguments in the face of relentless wisdom that Cameron flaunted - Joe Public had enough.
One chance was all they needed - to stop the flood, unleashed by the GDP Doctors, obsessed by innate fear of being overwhelmed.

Blame perhaps was due, in the end, to the Experts who understood Economics well without the human costs.
Blame perhaps was due, to the faults in the design of the European Union - unable to bring Investment Equalization.
Unlimited Migration was the only salvation in the absence of Investment Equalization - for East and South Europe.
For the dispossessed classes of Britain, the Referendum became their only salvation from sufferings Brussels imposed.

Perfection does not happen overnight - New Nations are not created overnight.
Europe as One Nation - has never happened in history, despite several futile attempts.
One Language English perhaps the greatest facilitator - America Australia Britain Canada.
Europe, unfortunately, was founded to challenge the dominance of One Language - English.
BREXIT HAD TO HAPPEN.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Jul 2, 2016

This is what the experts say. Kaplan of Harvard:

In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.
—Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam
- Louis Stouch Jul 2, 2016
  
  Not Kaplan. Putnam. sorry.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Charles Newlin Jul 2, 2016

"What is needed is more honesty, more humility, more granular analysis, and more refined prescriptions. "
In other words, less corruption. And, of course, a better track record of prediction and repair of disasters.
The economist Dean Baker was particularly vivid about the failure of economists to predict or do anything about the bubble that led to the Great Financial Collapse and Great Recession. What he failed to say is that the entire field, at least of macro-economics, had been discredited. Yet they continue to give advice that continues to make things worse.
Maybe the real problem is that people are catching on.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jul 2, 2016

Dear Max, PS is not a social media site. It is meant to be a professional / academic site that is visited by educated, knowledgeable and well conversant people. Therefore, any study or information, albeit scientific or otherwise reflects only the opinion of the author, PS has no responsibility over it whatsoever and has no right to temper with it. The Freedom of Information Act is very explicit in this regard. If indeed PS has deleted your comment, they must re-publish it forthwith, no matter the content.
- Max Isert Jul 2, 2016
  
  No worries, M M. I understand Project Syndicate's position on this. They are based out of Prague, and therefore do not enjoy the same 1st Amendment protections like in the United States, and I assume my comment could have been interpreted as ''hate speech'' against a certain culture by the very zealous ''speech police'' in Europe.
  
  My comment had to do with the low-activity 2-repeat allele (2R) of the MAO-A gene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A and its high prevalence in certain regions of the world (15.6%) compared to the West ( 0.1% to 0.5%) due to certain cultural traditions in those regions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East#Origins_of_Middle_Eastern_parallel-cousin_marriage
  
  Here the study I cited, that found the high prevalence (15.6%) of the 2R MAO-A allele. Check Table 1 (one) on page 3 (three) for those findings:
  ''Association study between the dopamine-related candidate gene polymorphisms and ADHD among Saudi Arabia population via PCR technique'' Link: http://adhdnet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/El-Tarras-2012-Association-study-betwee.pdf
  
  I won't comment in more detail on this and let you, M M, and other Project Syndicate readers/commenters connect the dots on this, and figure out for yourselves the significance and implications of these findings.
  
  Thank you, again, for your concern, M M, but I fully understand why Project Syndicate wants to protect themselves from potentially being shut down by European authorities, and it is in our interest, that they do this, so we can continue to read these excellent pages and interact and exchange ideas/solutions with each other in the comment section.
  
  All the best,
  
  Max
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Max Isert Jul 2, 2016

To the Project Syndicate moderation team,

I understand why you deleted my previous comment in this comment section. The information and scientific findings I shared were probably too politically controversial and too scientifically explosive to be shared publicly and widely.

My apologies for getting ahead of myself. I was just so excited to read Mr. Pisani-Ferry's open-minded and humble article, and impulsively shared some scientific findings that, as I said above, are probably too controversial to be publicly discussed at this time.

I am extremely grateful and highly appreciative of Mr. Pisani-Ferry's suggestions and proposal for a new approach to and look at immigration/multiculturalism and other challenging issues we are facing in the West, and just wanted to express my gratitude to him and Project Syndicate for not being afraid to ''think (and research) outside the box.''

This was my favorite part of the article and made me extremely hopeful for the future: ''For economists, humility also implies listening to people from other disciplines. On immigration, they should hear what sociologists, political scientists, or psychologists have to say about what coexistence in multicultural communities may entail.''

Thank you, again!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Shillock Jul 2, 2016

As a fairly recent NBER paper pointed out, when the policy interests of the upper class elites diverge from the people the latter always lose. The upper class has been winning more or less consistently in America since the early 1970s (as even Jason Furman, Obama's chief econ adviser pointed out in the latest Foreign Affairs, though not in so many words). Technocrats, preeminently economists, serve the interests of the financially and politically elite. A similar correspondence of interests between the elite and the news media make it surprising that many more people are finally recognizing and acting on their perceived financial interests in the only way they can short of taking to the streets. What is puzzling is why it has taken four decades, in America, at least.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jul 2, 2016

I'd add another observation to the voices below: the experts are at least partially culpable for delivering a politico-economic system in which income inequality is reported to be the highest since 1928. In other words, they have helped to construct a system in the West which has gutted all semblance of distributive justice and emasculated (for cash) government's ability to check the excesses of commerce.

The people are asking -- not without good reason -- who now, expert or otherwise, speaks for us?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Jul 2, 2016

In other words, why are voters not neo-liberal zombies?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
The Syndicate Jul 2, 2016

It's pretty easy really. If economists were as accurate as doctors and engineers they wouldn't have blown up Greece, forecasts about the eurozone would have been correct and the world would have been prewarned about the Global Financial Crisis. I don't think anyone is seriously thinking of ignoring medical advice, but on a simple track record a allusive it makes perfect sense to be sceptical of economic forecasts. The forecasts so many made about the 1975 referendum were - on both sides - very wide of the mark and I'm sure the ones about this one will be too.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thaomas H Jul 2, 2016

The distrust of experts expertise arising from the recession, not because the initial crash was not foreseen, but because the experts failed to prevent the multi-year loss of jobs and income. Although a sizable number of academic economists called from much more expansive fiscal and monetary policies, politicians and "macro-media" chose tight monetary and fiscal polices.
- Steve Hurst Jul 2, 2016
  
  @Thaomas
  UK debt as defined by the Maastrichtch Treaty has risen from 51.7% of GDP in 2008 to 89.2% in 2015. How much debt are you proposing is needed? In much the same timeframe in the US in order to crawl back to the baseline US debt has doubled in nominal terms and food stamps, a reasonable measure of poverty are now issued to over 44 million US citizens as against 27.5million in 2008. Debt is not the answer, it is just hole plugging to stop social unrest
  
  http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=teina225&plugin=1
  
  http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thaomas H Jul 2, 2016

This does not address the difference between public distrust for experts because they do not trust their expertise (experts were mistaken to think that Brexit would be harmful to the UK in the aggregate) or that they do not trust experts to tell the truth (experts know that Brexit was beneficial to the UK but were lying) or that they thought that their expertise was not relevant to them. (Brexit would be harmful to the UK as a whole, but favorable to themselves).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schneider Jul 2, 2016

Today, I must read the following in my newspaper:

"In the last year, more than one million people came to Germany, most of the male. Population scientists know that their women are waiting for the starting signal for subsquent immigration. Soon they will arrive, and it can be assumed that then there will be a real baby boom. It will be babies by arabic new citizens. Our society will change. Dramatically."

"The Brexit vote could lead to a radical change in the monetary policy of the ECB - and to a breach with the established rules [which are themselves already in breach of our constitution]: Priority for countries like Italy or Fance. This idea would be disastrous especially for Germany. In the case of losses Germany would still have to shoulder one fifth of the losses. Moreover, such a change in the key for bond purchases would further lower the pressure in those countries to introduce structural reforms."

Please some honesty on these issues. Is there any "expert" who wants to speak up? Who wants to be the pariah? Who wants do destroy his career? Who wants to be harassed by his colleagues? Who wants his property damaged and his house covered with graffiti?

Sorry, but I have come to the conclusion to completely reject the current system and its proponents. Very obviously, not the demagogues pose a threat to democracy. They only get their chance now that democracy has been abolished.
- Steve Hurst Jul 2, 2016
  
  @Peter
  It has been suggested that the current 1 million you refer to could easily become 5 million upon family reunification. Unemployment for that group have forecasts of about 50% from authorities in Germany. That is without any further migration, although much depends on just how many are economic migrants and get sent back, if that is even possible. As a mere 3 million EU citizens, most of whom are working, have caused concern in the UK and caused an ongoing housing crisis I expect trouble to brew in Germany. Discussion about it will probably end up being labelled as racist etc etc. The numbers being driven by war could easily be dwarfed by the numbers being driven by climate change. Sir Crispin Tickell was writing about this decades ago. To generalise - Previous mass migrations in history occurred when national borders were vague or nonexistant. His forecast basically was drought driven mass migration and border conflict
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 2, 2016

In the UK the roots of concern about experts selected by leaders or supporting leaders vocalisation and leaders them selves lies a bit further back. Iraq and Blair. How can anybody be surprised there is a loss of trust
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jul 2, 2016

No doubt a spot on article. One must add though that every single developed government contributed to the 2008 crisis, in one shape or another, everyone in the know expected it to happen sooner that later, but everyone chose to ignore it and decided to live in denial. Regarding the closing statement of the article one must add, much less lobbyists, much less scaremongering and above all enough vindictivness.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vatsal Chaturvedi Jul 1, 2016

Nice article....but is it possible to do granular analysis by just a few experts and policymakers.granular analysis will need people from all those parts of society which have to be considered.is it possible to make them work together with those intellectuals.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 1, 2016

Dear Jean
A wide spread of opinions are available in the chocolate box of life so a 'leader' simply picks a chocolate cream with an flavour that matches their taste, for example leaving the hard toffee centre chocolate behind, many chocolates are eagerly available in the box shouting loudly to be presented. As 'leaders' are not always right the chocolate they selected to support their arguments is reveiled as suspect. Furthermore chocolates that disagree with 'leaders' tend to get spat out rapidly. People watching this lose faith in all chocolates and say no thank you when offere one. I hope this explains how it works
- Steve Hurst Jul 3, 2016
  
  @M M
  
  An early role that developed to became a powerful official position involved in setting national fiscal policy
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 3, 2016
  
  @M M
  It is a prerequiste for leaders that if necessary they appoint a 'taster'. Such roles have exisited since medieval times when the idea of the voice of the common people began to be proposed to quell unrest
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Karen Williams Jul 2, 2016
  
  "Furthermore chocolates that disagree with 'leaders' tend to get spat out rapidly."
  Disgustingly, the few such "chocolates" as have been available have been spat out by the other experts so emphatically that the leaders didn't even need to acknowledge their existence. Luckily some of those (Thomas Piketty's book, at any rate) are finally now being eaten up by ordinary people.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Jul 2, 2016
  
  To Steve, and if one is allergic to chocolate?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schneider Jul 2, 2016
  
  @Steve: You are spot on.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 2, 2016
  
  @Peter
  Peter, as a 'leader' one must have quality control. Chocolates that do not meet the 'standard' have to be labelled as 'mis-shapes' not to offered at the high table
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Peter Schneider Jul 2, 2016
  
  Chocolates that disagree with 'leaders' have no chance to get into the chocolate box.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alessandro Daliana Jul 1, 2016

Economists, social scientists, academics, journalists, politicians, and the like operate at an aggregate level that is viewed as an ivory tower by the average voter making them of no interest to those on the ground. At best, the average person's concerns involve family and friends, and maybe their community but little else. At worst, people are concerned about themselves. And, that's just the point brought about by the electorate: the "political elite" do not share their concerns.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jul 1, 2016

It is an interesting article but Several points:

1) Loser are NEVER compensated. We just here how the invisible hand of the market will magically make everybody happy.
2) You ever what the experts testify is the best thing to do tends to benefit the rich and powerful and leaves the middle class and poor knee deep in Fecal and sinking fast. This tends to lead to suspicion that the "Experts" Statement should have been this policy will be best for the rich.
3) Economists and so called experts in general BELIEVE with all force of a Baptist preachers belief in god. That if this policy benefits one man a billion dollars and costs 10,000 men 990 million dollars that is a wonderful policy and should be carried out. On behalf of the 10,000 men we really really hate you.
4) Like a good number of people who once had a job that supported a middle class lifestyle and ended up poverty courtesy of these "wonderful" trade policies you folks supported. Sure it did wonders for GDP. But one single question how many US workers in poverty without a pot piss in courtesy of these "Wonderful" you people said would not hurt US workers at all?

I won't Vote for Trump but I clearly understand why some people will. Of course I won't vote for Clinton either Mrs NAFTA I think not.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 1, 2016

+10
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Walker Jul 1, 2016

"Third, economists should move beyond the (generally correct) observation that such distributional effects can be addressed through taxation and transfers, and work out how exactly that should happen. Yes, if a policy decision leads to aggregate gains, losers can in principle be compensated. But this is easier said than done."

Except that this is patently false. The "compensation principle" has been examined to death and found to be utterly invalid. "Unacceptable nonsense" was I.M.D. Little's description. The "experts," though, simply ignore the literature in their own field. What, pray, are they "expert" in then? Faking it?

"Doubtless influenced to some extent by Robbins, economists gave up the idea of cardinal utility, claiming that all the propositions of positive demand theory could be derived from ordinal utility. They even tried to base normative economics on ordinal utility and the incommensurability of individual utilities. Thus one state of affairs was held to be better than another if those who gained could overcompensate those who lost. This was unacceptable nonsense, as was soon pointed out. However, the idea of compensation, and its possibility or otherwise, has remained important in applied welfare economics ..."

http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/12/cost-benefit-analysis-as-unacceptable.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jul 1, 2016

It is perhaps a useful exercise to compare and contrast this analysis with the speech Nigel Farage gave in the European parliament on the 28th (full text here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-brexit-speech-european-parliament-full-transcript-text-a7107036.html )

"What I’d like to see is a grownup and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship. I know that virtually none of you have never done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. But listen, just listen."

The winds of change, to paraphrase Harold Macmillan, are blowing through the West -- and pushing all our ships of state to starboard.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Hoffman Jul 1, 2016

The public lacks a viable Public Sphere and "experts" do not have the same amount of Representative Publicity as a media figure, generic politician, or popular CEO. Furthermore CEO's,experts, media figures, and generic politician's alike have primarily shared their viewpoint in a manner similar to how a Nobel would sit before a group of lessor nobles or peasants, and present their thoughts and agenda.

This form of representation only works if social norms dictate unilateral acceptance, but these norms may be starting to become unhinged, and hopefully whatever replaces will be more collaborative.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jul 1, 2016

Having completed reading the article I would like to say this is the first instrospective writing in this forum which does not simply cry out that brexit is an act to be entirely blamed on madmen, simpletons and nut cases. More articles like this please.
- Andrew Wright Jul 10, 2016
  
  +1 again!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- julika winkler Jul 3, 2016
  
  I agree.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 2, 2016
  
  +1
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jul 1, 2016

Economists actually do stand front and center of the ideas that led to this wave of anger. Especially with regards to the idea of trickle down economics. "Let's move the factories to China and this will free up Americans to do higher paid jobs. "
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/WSNG5wfzh

公众为何会无视专家的意见

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

A British Test of Reason

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

公众为何会无视专家的意见

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification