- Email: [email protected]
The lighter side of the dismal science: The humor of economics
The Lighter Side of the Dismal Science: The Humor of Economics
MARGARET
A. RAY*
Texas Christian
University
In 1899 Thomas Carlyle christened economics “The Dismal Science.” Since that time, the view of economics as dismal has persisted. But all economists and all writings by economists are not as humorless as this reputation indicates. There have been humorous writings in economics as long as there has been an economics literature. Beginning in Victorian England, this article traces the use of humor by economists. The sardonic work of Bastiat, Mandeville and Veblen are examined in terms of Heilbroner’s “underworld of economics.” The focus of the article then becomes humor in the economics literature during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Authors have used persiflage to poke fun at a wide variety of topics, concentrating on economic theory, research methods, and the conduct of the profession as the source of humor.
HUMOR
IN ECONOMICS
Thomas Carlyle is credited with christening 1899.’ John Kenneth Galbraith writes:
economics
“The
Dismal
Science”
in
There was a final, if unintentional, Malthusian legacy, one for which he was responsible along with Ricardo. Economics would hereafter be associated with an atmosphere of unrelieved pessimism and gloom, and economists would be given the name and reputation (by way of Carlyle) that survives to this day, that of the “Respectable Professors of the Dismal Science.“2 Perhaps this view of Economics as “The Dismal Science” has persisted due to recurring economic forecasts reminiscent of Malthus and Chicken Little, or perhaps undergraduates have had a hand in propagating the view as they trudged through courses in economic theory. Indeed, in general, the social sciences are known more for squelching, rather than quenching the human appetite for humor, Whatever the reason, the characterization remains with the profession. *Direct all correspondence to: Margaret A. Ray, Department Worth, TX 76129. Telephone: (817) 921-7230.
of Economics,
The Social Science Journal, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 227-242. Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.
Texas Christian
University,
Fort
228
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
But are all economists, and all scholarly publications by economists, as humorless as this dismal reputation indicates? This article attempts to soften that reputation by considering humor and satire in economists’ academic publications. The purpose of this article is to present, as a body of literature, humorous papers published in economics journals. I intend to demonstrate how economists use humor to address serious issues relating to the dominant paradigms in economic theory, the research methods employed by the discipline, and the conduct of the economics profession. Humor is used by economists as a way to demand attention to an idea, a way to create role distance, a way to address issues on multiple levels, and a way to hold others in the profession accountable for their statements and actions. Much has been written about the role of humor in communication and social interaction. Students of humor have considered many and varied questions about the role of humor in social re1ationships.j One common theme, however, is how humor becomes a meaningful form of communication in both everyday and specialized contexts. Gary Alan Fine, for instance, addressed humorous interaction as a social construction of meaning; Three features of jocular interaction are of particular relevance for understanding humor’s position in communication. First, humorous interaction demands an immediate response from its listeners. Second, humorous interaction typically allows its animator considerable role distance, so that the implications of a jocular remark can be denied. Third, humorous interaction as a metaphorical construction contains dense layers of meaning, and these meanings give it a significance beyond its denotative import.” In the specialized context of academia an author using humor is able to present a potentially controversial idea in a way that demands an immediate response from the reader. In addition, humor allows the author to distance herself from the seriousness of the subject matter, facilitating denial of controversial statements. Perhaps most importantly, humor allows the author to present a humorous discussion which contains much deeper meanings. The “dense layers of meaning” contained in humorous academic papers address important and solemn issues in a unique way. Both the author and the reader are allowed to escape the gravity of the subject matter while considering at other levels, important issues addressed in the literature. Michael Flaherty notes, it is not difficult to envision how burdensome reality work must seem to human beings who toil, day in and day out, to uphold those taken-for-granted presuppositions which comprise social reality. Nor is it hard to imagine why people enjoy leavening their mundane reality work with what I choose to call “reality play .“5
Nor is it hard to see why some economists choose to shed some of the burden of their potentially dismal reality work in favor of reality play in the form of humorous papers. Fine’s three components of jocular interaction “permit an examination of how social actors strategically employ humor in natural interaction to altercast others (and
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
229
Science
use humor to rebut the define themselves) and to redefine situations.“6 Economists ideas of others, to define their own views and to attempt to redefine the dominant economic paradigms. The influence of these papers is unclear, but no great shift in paradigms can as yet be attributed to them. Often the papers cited here speak to the economics discipline in particular. Because humor depends on a shared language and universe of discourse, what causes economists to laugh uproariously might be lost on outsiders. By nature, the humor is “inside.” However, the general themes of most of these papers could and may have been applied throughout the social science disciplines. As an anonymous referee noted, “. . the points made. . . seemed to apply quite readily to my own discipline of sociology. I know anthropologists are funny, and, if we can believe Mel Brooks, there might even be a few stand up philosophers.“’
HUMOR
IN THE LITERATURE
Humor has been used to comment on economics as long as there has been an economics literature. It was in Victorian England where, “A new professordom took over the main life of economic thought.“8 This professordom (e.g. Alfred Marshall, W. Stanley Jevons, Frances Edgeworth) began introducing mathematics into economic theory. Ideas relying on Felicific Calculus, Mathematical Psychics and the Calculus of Pleasure and Pain became dominant in an economics in which every man is a Benthamesque pleasure machine. And so, economics of cranks world of behavior Victorian doubtings
as a counterpart to this pale world of equations, an underworld of flourished. There had always been such an underworld, a strange limbo and heretics. . . There was simply no longer any room in the official economics for those who wanted to take the whole gamut of of human for their forum, and there was little tolerance in the stuffy world of correctness for those whose diagnosis of society left room for moral or seemed to indicate the need for radical reform.9
An early example of underworld satire appeared in the early 1700’s, when Bernard Mandeville wrote Fable of the Bees .I0 This fable uses a colony of bees as the setting of an economy to present Mandeville’s sophism. Bernard Mandeville . I shocked the eighteenth century with a witty demonstration that virtue was vice and vice virtue. Mandeville merely pointed out that the profligate expenditure of the sinful rich gave work to the poor, while stingy rectitude of the virtuous penny pincher did not; hence, said Mandeville, private immorality may redound to the public welfare, whereas private uptightness may be a social burden.”
Heilbroner further points out that Mandeville’s work was not appreciated by his contemporaries. It was convicted as a public nuisance by a grand jury in Middlesex in 1723 and “roundly castigated” by Adam Smith.
THE
230
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
Frederic Bastiat presents another example of an early economist using humor. His book, Economic Sophisms I* “is as close to humor as economics has ever come. . Bastiat had a gift for pointing out absurdities.“” A classic example of Bastiat’s masterful economic satire is his petition to the candlemakers: PETITION TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAXLIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING To Messieurs
the Members
of the Chamber
of Deputies
Gentlemen. We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to our own for the production of light, that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. This rival is no other than the sun. What we pray for is that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, inside and outside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull’s_eyes; in a word of all openings, chinks, and fissures.14
Bastiat uses satire to attack the prevailing economic paradigm in this and other sophisms. But “official economics” did not seem to take notice of the paradoxes which Bastiat and Mandeville pointed out in their satirical writings. Others have tried using humor to forestall the complete mathematization of economics. Perhaps the most well-known eccentric writing in Heilbroner’s underworld is Thorstein Veblen. To understand much of Veblen’s writing, the reader must possess both intellectual sophistication and a sense of humor. Veblen adeptly uses sardonic passages to illustrate the absurdity he saw in the Calculus of Pleasure and Pain being increasingly applied to economic problems. I5 Veblen and other writers throughout the history of the discipline used humor to criticize this paradigm which was to become dominant in economics.
HUMOR
IN MODERN
ECONOMICS
Does a form of Heilbroner’s Underworld still exist in modem (1970’s and 1980’s) economics? Unlike the recognized areas of specialization, the literature involving humor is written by a diverse group, with no authors leading the “field” of humor. But contributors are generally leaders in their own particular established field. Alan Blinder, Martin Feldstein, George Stigler, and Axe1 Leijonhufvud are names familiar to most, if not all, current economists. Clearly, these authors are not generally considered cranks or heretics. Humorous articles appearing in academic journals during the past two decades target three general areas: economic theory, research methods in economics, and the conduct of the profession in academia.16 Each of these areas is made fun of periodically,
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
231
Science
with economic theory taking the brunt of the joke most often. Some humorous are equally irreverent toward all three categories.
works
Economic Theory The use of humor, especially exaggeration, to poke fun at economic theories is common in the literature of the past two decades. ” There is no prejudice against either micro- or macro-theory; economists mock each with equal fervor. Alan Blinder’s work, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth” addresses the universal application of microeconomic theory that some modem thinkers would have us pursue: The ever-growing literature on human capital has long recognized that the scope of theory extends well beyond the traditional analysis of schooling and on-the-job training. Migration, maintenance of health, crime and punishment, even marriage and suicide, are all decisions which can usefully be considered from the human capital point of view. Yet economists have ignored the analysis of an important class of activities which can and should be brought within the purview of the theory. A Prime example of this class is brushing teeth.18 Blinder indicates that the analysis can “also be applied to such important topics as combing hair, washing hair, and cutting fingernails.” The model developed and tested in this paper replaces the existing “‘bad taste in one’s mouth’ model” and “‘mother told me so’ theory,” with a model in which “each individual does whatever amount of toothbrushing will maximize his income” (or at least he behaves as if he maximized income). In reviewing the literature, Blinder finds a substantial literature on the brushing of teeth; however, most of the existing literature is dental rather than economic. He finds this surprising since most economists brush their teeth (though this can be disputed). He summarizes a recent survey from a leading Eastern university: It was found that assistant professors brushed 2.14 times daily on average, while associate professors brushed only 1.89 times and full professors only 1.47 times daily. The author, a sociologist, mistakenly attributed this finding to the fact that the higher-ranking professors were older and that hygiene standards had advanced steadily over time. To a human capital theorist, of course, this pattern is exactly what would be expected from the higher wages received in the higher professional ranks, and from the fact that younger professors, looking for promotions, cannot afford to have bad breath.19 Blinder then develops his formal model of dental hygiene and tests the model empirically using data collected from the Federal Brushing Institute (FBI?). He finds that “the survey data strikingly confirm the predictions of the theoretical model presented here. “‘*” The paper is indeed another success of the “Princeton oral tradition.” Blinder’s paper is strikingly similar to the plethora of papers applying microeconomic theory which appeared during the 1970’s and 1980’s. The organization and progression are similar to those of papers applying microeconomics to everything from art to zebras.21 Some economists subscribe to the universality of microeconomic theory. Blinder’s paper on brushing teeth and other applied microeconomics papers
232
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 2WNo.
2/1991
take applications to the extreme. These authors use microeconomic theory to “analyze” trivial or absurd problems (brushing teeth, rationally demanding psychiatric help, or explaining the land/population ratio for Canadian football). Layered in the jocularity is the attempt to illustrate that thinking of microeconomics as the explanation of all behavior is, to say the least, venturesome. In macroeconomics, humorous papers often reflect the views of the different schools of thought. In a 1982 paper, Dennis Snower mocks several of these schools by examining the macroeconomic policy which leads to the socially optimal level of vampire destruction: Although human beings have endured the recurring ravages of vampires for centuries, scarcely any attempts have been made to analyze the macroeconomic implications of this problem and to devise socially optimal policy responses. Despite the increasing incidence of vampire epidemics in recent years, vampirism remains a thoroughly neglected topic in the theory of macroeconomic policy. their most conspicuous macroeconomic impact arises from their detrimental effect on the labor force.**
Snower notes an existing microeconomic study in which vampire behavior is modeled using the implicit assumption of the “invisible fang” but rejects this behavioral model Snower provides a “framework for as having “questionable validity .“23 Alternatively, the synthesis of vampirism and macroeconomics” using a mathematically rigorous mode1.24 He derives a vampire neutrality theorem and suggests further research to incorporate rational expectations into his vampire destruction model. Snower’s model relies on the assumptions that “the ‘representative vampire’ requires an exogenously given amount of blood per unit of time” and “human beings procreate at an exogenously given rate.” Applying these assumptions, Snower derives the Vampire Impossibility Theorem. When the production trade-off is between widgets and stakes, “if the number of stakes per vampire remains below the critical level. . . it is not possible for the human race to survive.“25 However, the complete destruction of vampires is shown, under plausible conditions, to be socially sub-optimal. A second theorem derived from Snower’s theoretical model is the Vampire Neutrality Theorem: The spontaneous generation of vampires (i.e., the the appearance of vampires ex nihlo) affects the optimal x and s in the short run but not the long run. In other words, vampires are neutral in the long run. This theorem follows immediately from the fact that, in the long run, the socially . This optimal stationary state (x*, s*) does not depend on the initial conditions. principle maybe summarized by the aphorism “vampires are a veil.“2h
Thus, Snower concludes that vampires have the same long-run effect on the macroeconomy as money has in the traditional monetarist model. Keynesians are not ignored, as Snower notes that “In addition to stakes, crosses (of the non-Keynesian variety) may hold vampires at bay.“27 As suggestion for further research, the paper points out that
The Lighter Side of the Dismal Science
233
. since both humans and vampires are known to exploit all the economic rent at their disposal, the study of human-vampire interrelations under rational expectations promises to be an important area of future economic research. After all, there is alot at stake.28 Snower ends his paper by mocking microeconomic foundations as well as rational expectations in macroeconomic theory. Thus, Snower is irreverent toward most of the dominant macroeconomic theories. The irreverence Snower shows serves the purpose of making the academic context meaningful, in a somewhat twisted sense of the term. The well-defined macroeconomic schools of thought have led to an abundance of humorous articles.29 The authors’ persiflage brings out differences between the schools of thought, showing the preferred ideology as superior. This raillery allows authors to address alternative ideas without the solemn criticism often found in the literature.
Research Methods The jesting, however, is not reserved for economic theory. The research methods used in economics are also frequently the subject of ridicule.30 The increasing emphasis economists place on statistical technique makes their research methods a good target for humor. The level and complexity of the research methods employed by economists threatens to obscure both the research questions and answers. For instance, Edi Kami and Barbara Shapiro introduce economists to “Tales of Horror for Ivory Towers.“3’ They tell the story of data torture taking place in universities across the nation: Stunned disbelief swept across the nation’s universities yesterday, following the release of a report by an investigatory committee looking into charges of data torture. Following a massive, 6-month probe, the Committee on the Mistreatment of Raw Data (COMRAD) unearthed the widespread use by academic researchers of “unorthodox techniques applied during the routine investigation of innocent data.“. . Among the studies most shocking findings was the discovery of the “lacerating mauling” of data by electronic means.32 This data torture, they discover, may have led to the unwitting publication of “false confessions” from data. The “strong-arm tactics” uncovered by the committee include the “gradualist syndrome” and the “maxixalist method.“33 The gradualist syndrome uses progressively heavy doses of pressure until the data yields its insights. The maximalist method begins the inquisition with the immediate application of the most forceful methods, such as third-degree autoregressive processes or third-degree polynomial structures. The routine application of the Cochrane-Orcutt method and two-stage least-squares procedures is also reported. COMRAD conducted interviews with people associated with the University as part of the investigation. An acquaintance of an indicted professor is quoted as saying, “He is a family man and a good neighbor, . . . I would never have believed Curt was capable of detrending.” The report gives a possible explanation for the abuses:
234
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
IOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
Speculating on possible causes of the abuses, one observer suggested that the constant pressure to publish may have strained some researchers to the point where questions of ethics became secondary. Moral apathy on the part of the public at large and a lack of concern from theoreticians within the universities were also blamed.j4 Karni and Shapiro use this fictional report to discuss, with great wit, problems becoming increasingly important in empirical research. The paper uses humor as a way to be instructive without being accusatory. It points out the possibility and the consequences of “going too far” to find empirical support for economic theory, without suggesting that there should be no empirical research. Preston McAfee mocks a technique and also a specific paper [Robert Fogel’s “A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Railroads in American Economic Growth”35]. He imitates the counter-factual technique employed by Fogel in the Journal of Economic History, creating a bogus analysis to answer the question “What would the world be like today, if Columbus had indeed fallen off the edge of the earth?” McAfee’s sardonic paper is laced with sarcasm, witticisms, and puns. His footnotes and references show complete irreverence for counter-factual analysis. For example, papers in the “literature review” consider “what if Fogel had never written his paper?” and “if Fogel were conceived on a train, he would have utilized more traditional methods in Economic History?“3h McAfee introduces his hypothesis: it is hypothesized that, rather than stumble upon the two American continents, Columbus fell off the edge of the earth. Certainly this is a valid test, for if America were to be virtually unchanged, despite not being discovered, certainly the “American century” was inevitable. 1 choose the year 2000 as a target date, and compare America as it will be in the year 2000 to the way it would have been then, had Columbus fallen off the edge.”
McAfee develops a complex model to show “that despite Columbus falling off the edge, the United States is on average substantially unchanged.” McAfee will provide proof upon receipt of $8.99 at the address provided in the paper. The results are obtained using an artificial intelligence procedure called FRAPPE. In particular, FRAPPE is useful in forecasting human events, weather, and the stock market for the next several hundred years. For the last reason, FRAPPE’s mechanics must remain a trade secret. However, the details will be published in my 2010 study posthumously. Unfortunately, the common knowledge of FRAPPE would destroy FRAPPE’s analytical ability. and thus FRAPPE will not be exploitable when generally known.38
An additional finding is that, while the U.S. remains the same, the rest of the world is drastically different. For example, “in a daring exploit, a team of Welsh divers unfastened Australia from the Pacific rim and, in dead of night. . . fasten it near the edge of the earth.” The analysis provides, as all analyses do, avenues for future research. “What would happen if one size didn’t fit all? If your mileage didn’t vary
235
The Lighter Side of the Dismal Science
depending on how you drive? If contents didn’t settle during shipping, would cardboard be elastic?’ Here and elsewhere humor mirrors serious research. Its use provides a particular type of meaning to the serious research it mocks. McAfee’s article is filled with biting sarcasm and dry wit from the first line through the references. Only careful reading will unveil the full extent of McAfee’s sophistry, which demonstrates the perceived absurdity of counter-factual analysis. One social purpose of satire is to represent a point of view that is counter to the mainstream and attempt to unseat “sacred cows” that are part of the dominant paradigm. Richard Woodman calls attention to research methods using a dictionary of research terms.39 Woodman defines an hypothesis as “a prediction based on theory formulated after an experiment is performed designed to account for the ludicrous series of events are not disproven based on experimental which have taken place.“40 Hypotheses results which attain some level of significance. Woodman defines this level as “an imaginary dividing line between casual effects and chance.“41 This level, he asserts, tells experimenters “how many replications must be performed before chance falls indicate Woodman’s cynical view of his or her way.“42 These and other definitions statistical analysis, which he defines as Mysterious, sometimes bizarre, manipulations performed upon the collected data of an experiment in order to obscure the fact that the results have no generalizable meaning for humanity. Commonly, computers are used, lending an additional air of unreality to the proceedings?’ Woodman uses his dictionary to mock behavioral research in cases where results have become the end rather than the means. Authors who use raillery to write about research methods are not ignorant of or opposed to statistical analysis they are merely pointing out that it is possible to go too far. That is, it is possible to become so concerned with methods that one loses sight of the questions. It is hoped that these definitions contain just enough truth to make us uncomfortable. Not taking ourselves too seriously helps to retain a sense of perspective, reminds us of the fallibility always present in human endeavors, and thus may serve to, strengthen our sometimes feeble attempts at science.#
The Conduct
of the Profession
A third area prone to ridicule is the conduct of academic economists.45 Periodically papers point out fatuousness within the profession, particularly Academe. Axe1 Lejonhufvud’s “Life Among the Econ”46 may be regarded as a “classic” to be read by aspiring academics. This anthropological study of the economics “tribe” looks at the behavior of university economists. The Econ tribe occupies a vast territory in the far north. Their land appears bleak and dismal to the outsider, and traveling through it makes for tough sledding; but the Econ, through a long period of adaptation, have learned to wrest a living of sorts from it.4’
236
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
IOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
The social structure of the tribe is complex. Castes and status and pecking orders permeate the existence of the members. A tribal member’s “field” gives a clear insight into his status in the tribe (Leijonhufvud’s paper ignores the existence of female tribal members). A comparison of status relationships in the different “fields” shows a definite common pattern. The dominant feature, which makes status relationships among the Econ of unique interest to the serious student, is the way status is tied to the manufacture of certain implements, called “modls.” The status of the adult male is determined by his skill at making the “modl” of his “field.” The facts (a) that the Econ are highly status motivated, (b) that status is only to be achieved by making “modls,” and (c) that most of these “modls” seen to be of little or no practical use, probably accounts for the backwardness and abject cultural poverty of the tribe.48
An important part of the tribal system is the upbringing of the young Econ or “Grad.” The process by which the “Grad” is admitted to adulthood is complex, but centers on the making of a “modl” of adequate complexity. Failure to make a “modl” complex enough or the failure of a young adult to continue making “modl” for a determined period of time will result in the member being turned out of the “dept” by the elders. “If life is hard on the young, the Econ show their compassion in the way that they take care of the elderly. Once elected an elder, the member need do nothing and will still be well taken care of.“49 The two largest castes of the Econ tribe are the “Micro” and the “Macro.” It is not clear which of the two castes is dominant; however, it is clear that the ceremonial totem used by each member determines his caste. The IS-LM totem is reserved for members of the “Macro,” while the S-D totem is reserved for the “Micro.” When a member of the “Micro” is asked why “Micro” do not intermarry with the “Macro” (or vice versa), he will answer “They make a different Modl.” Leijonhufvud provides an outlook for the future of the Econ tribe: They are poor-except for a tiny minority, miserably poor. Their population growth rate is among the highest in the world. Their land is fairly rich, but much of the natural resources that are their birth-right has been sold off to foreign interests for a mess of pottage. Many of their young are turning to pot and message. In their poverty, they are not even saved from the problems of the richer nations -travelers tell of villages half-buried in the refuse of unchecked modl-making and of the eye-sores left on the once pastoral landscape by the random strip-mining of the O’Metrs (Econometric field). It is said that even their famous Well Springs of Inspiration are now polluted. In the midst of their troubles, the Econ remain as of old a proud and warlike race. But they seen entirely incapable of “creative response” to their problems. It is plain to see what is in store for them if they do not receive outside aidJo
In a recent study, Joe Walker uses Leijonhufvud’s anthropological format to study a newly formed splinter tribe, the “Finan.“S1 The complexity of the caste system and
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
237
Science
ceremonial totems is equal that of the Econ and the prospects for their future are equally guarded. These authors implicitly make fun of “normal science” (i.e. the cumulative nature of scientific discovery). These two authors clearly believe that the discipline’s intricate status systems and complex, unrealistic models may result in irreparable damage to the discipline if of the Finan modlchanges are not made. Walker concludes, “The overspecialization making activities may well lead to the tribe’s extinction should cries for relevance or simplicity ever be heeded.“52 George Stigler turns to a specific institution within the economics profession to demonstrate his pessimism. Stigler compares the economics conference to a story about traveling salesmen. In the story, the salesmen have heard the same old jokes so many times that they know them by number. When a new member of the group ventures to tell a joke by shouting “36,” no one laughs. An older salesman informs the younger that he told the joke badly. Stigler is reminded of the salesmen when attending conferences of economists. Economists travel together a great deal, and there is no reason why the discussion of papers which follow the presentation of papers should not utilize a handbook of commentary.53
Stigler provides a preliminary list of comments which are all too frequently used at conferences. Introductory remarks are listed by letter and include, “The paper admirably solves the problem which it sets for itself; unfortunately this was the wrong problem,“54 and “Although the paper was promised three weeks ago, I received it as are designated by number and include, “Adam I entered this room.“55 Comments Smith said that, ‘The central argument is not only a tautology, it is false,‘“56 and “What happens when you extend the analysis to a later (or earlier) period?“57 Stigler presents these and others, and many remain which may be added to the list. Many economists complain bitterly about the way conferences of economists are conducted. Some boycott these meetings, but others simply continue to participate and lament the loss of a potentially effective institution. Stigler expresses the frustration that many feel; however, several comments about his analysis should be made: G! 4! These authors use humor to express their disappointment with the conduct of the economics profession. These frustrations, be they with teaching,58 researching5” or professional activities” have led some to vent their frustrations through humor. In this context, humor may be the only meaningful vehicle by which to make a critical commentary. Any other way might make the author appear disloyal. Perhaps authors seek to create awareness of the problems they see, perhaps they hope to elicit change, or perhaps they only feel the need to amuse.
CONCLUSION:
THE
ACCEPTANCE
OF HUMOR
IN ECONOMICS
In American Scholar Aristides writes, “If music be a universal language, humor is a quite particular one.“61 The use of humor in general or in particular is not accepted by all scholars. Some authors even seem to feel the need to apologize for their
238
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
writings. Warren Samuels states in the introduction to his paper that “. . . the first [part] is a fictional report actually prepared in fun for private circulation.“62 Woodman even cites an authority! Writing around the turn of the century, Ambrose Bierce remarked that “to apologize is to lay the foundation for a future offense.” In that spirit, to those who may perceive the following as imperfectly respectful of the seriousness of our endeavors, an apology is offered in advance.63 Veblen’s work is often misunderstood or dismissed as a result of s biting wit and writing style. McAfee’s “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus” is considered by some to be one of the best modern satirical economics papers published. Some, however, including at least one author of a serious counterfactual economic history paper, see nothing funny about it. While convictions of works as a public nuisance do not occur in a formal sense as they did in Mandeville’s day, humorous papers are still “roundly castigated” by some. What, then, is the place of humor in economics? Clearly it has not been relegated to “the underworld.” The papers considered here are not written as criticism from outside. They are written by reputable economists and are published in respected “official” academic journals. These authors use humor to demand a reaction to the point they are making. The tone of the paper is jocular but in many cases the underlying meaning of the humorous paper is controversial. Humor provides the added benefit of allowing these authors to make their underlying comments in a palatable format. For example, Stiglep and Leijonhufvud’j5 attack the professions revered institutions. In so doing, they are using humor to altercast the position of others, define their own position and redefine the institutions. They are able to do this while maintaining considerable role distance. Humor facilitates acceptable criticism the economics profession, its theories and its research methods. Their humor represents the profession’s introspection. Humor can be seen not only a sign of opposition but also as a sign of status for a theory, a school of thought, or indeed the entire discipline. For a particular school of thought, being made fun of in the literature implies status in that the existence of a unique school is acknowledged. A theory must have gained considerable acceptance before it will be mocked in the literature (e.g. counterfactual analysis, rational expectations). The existence of humor from without implies status as well. Only the “chosen” disciplines are portrayed humorously. Peter Berger points out, “There are very few jokes about sociologists. This is frustrating for sociologists, especially if they compare Economists, in contrast to the sociologists, themselves with. . . the psychologists.“M are often the butt of jokes?’ Berger further notes, “The dearth of jokes about sociologists indicates, of course, that they are not as much a part of the popular Thus, humor fulfills multiple functions. It projects a imagination as psychologists.” reflective view of the discipline and, ironically, elevates the prestige of the discipline (or validates the elevated status of the discipline). Aristides makes the point that “. . . great humorists are, at bottom, people who have been driven to despair by the conduct of mankirnY9 or, in this case, perhaps
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
Science
239
driven to despair by “the Dismal Science.” This may explain the use of humor to criticize mainstream economics. Economists who see the expansion and entrenchment of an economic paradigm with which they disagree can use humor to cope with their despair and to respond to what they see as wrong. Some may feel that economic theory, research methods, or the conduct of the profession has become so sad that its funny. Economists continue to develop and employ sophisticated theories and refined research methods. The level and complexity of economic research is indeed impressive. Economists are prolific authors, publishing volumes of research in every conceivable area. But the issues addressed by economic research, and in fact all social science research, are far from frivolous. Economists address painful issues including poverty, crime, unemployment, discrimination, environmental quality, and social welfare. It is the impetus behind much economic research that seems to have driven these economists to despair over the emphasis of style versus substance. These authors use humor to call attention to the possibility that economic theory and research methods, and indeed economists themselves, lose sight of what should be the ultimate goal of social sciences-to contribute to the understanding and solution of important social problems. Acknowledgments: The author is indebted to Caldwell L. Ray, Paul W. Grimes, John T. Harvey and Joe K. Law for their comments and suggestions. This article also benefited from insightful comments made by the editor and two anonymous referees. Thanks are also due those who helped locate the humorous articles included here. The author is solely responsible for any remaining errors or omissions.
NOTES 1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
John Kenneth Gailbraith, Economics in Perspective, Boston, 1987. Ibid, p. 81. For example; Michael G. Flaherty, “A Formal Approach to the Study of Amusement in Social Interaction,” and Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein, ” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 1984)., Mark Seckman and Carl Couch, “Jocularity, Sarcasm, and Relationships: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnogruphy, 18 (October 1989): 327-344, andErving Goffman, Encounters, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961. Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984), p. 83. Michael G. Flaherty , “A Formal Approach to the Study of Amusement in Social Interaction,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984), p. 75. Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Znteruction (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984) p. 83. Comments of an anonymous Referee.
240
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17.
18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 143. Ibid, p. 150. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, (London, 1924). Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 150. Frederic Bastiat, Economic Sophisms (New York: Putnam, 1909). Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 15 1. Frederic Bastiat, Fallacies of Protection, New York, 1909. Thorstein Veblen, The Place of Science in Modern Civilization (New York, 1919). The modern articles referenced here have been compiled through both formal and informal means. The collection began with articles found accidentally during other research. Later, a formal survey was sent to a cross-section of economists and a notice was placed on an electronic bulletin board, asking for help in identifying humorous articles. To be included, articles had to meet two criterion. First, the authors had to purposefully use humor or satire. This excludes articles which were received from colleagues who described the paper as “a joke.” Some colleagues suggested that whole journals publish nothing but papers that are “laughable.” These do not meet the first criteria. The second criterion was that the article actually be humorous to someone by some (albeit very low) standard. For example; Alan S. Blinder, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 82 (1974), Greg Davidson, “A Midnight Summer’s Dream.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5 (Fall 1982), Scott Gordon, “The Economics of the Afterlife.” The Journal ofPolitical Economy, 88 (1980), Jean-Claude Koeune, “On Some Unhappy Consequences of Professor Leibhafsky’s Consumers’ Demand for Psychiatric Help.” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1974), Christophger Light, “The Birth of Stagflation: A Fable.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), O.E. Covick, “The Quantity Theory of Drink-A Restatement.” Australian Economic Papers, 13 (1974), and Peter Hammond, “The Core and Economics Through the Looking-Glass.” Australian Economic Papers, 16 (1977). Alan Blinder, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth.” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1974), p. 887. Ibid, p. 889. Ibid, p. 891. “Art Investment: An Empirical Inquiry.” Southern Bruno Frey and Werner Pommerehne, Economic Journal, 56 (1989) and Margaret Ray and Paul Grimes, “Breeding Technology and Horse Industry Economics in the 1990’s.” The Horse Digest, Journal of the U.S. Horse Industry, 8 (August 1989). Policy and the Optimal Destruction of Vampires.” Dennis Snower, “Macroeconomic Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1982), p. 647. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid, p. 654. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid, p. 655. For example; Royal Brandis, “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), Greg Davidson, “A Midnight Summer’s Dream.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5 (Fall 1982), Susan Feiner and Bruce Roberts, “Marx and Keynes and Kalecki.” Journal of Economic Issues, 20 (1986), Martin Feldstein, “Twas a Night in the Sixties.” Journal of Political Economy, 89 (1981), Christopher Light, “The Birth of Stagflation: A Fable.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), and Dennis Snower,
The Lighter
30.
31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
Side of the Dismal
Science
241
“Macroeconomic Policy and the Optimal Destruction of Vampires.” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1982). For example; J. Heckman, “The Effect of Prayer on God’s Attitude Toward Man.” (Unpublished Manuscript), 1980; Edi Karni and Barbara Shapiro, “Tales of Horror from Ivory Towers.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980); Preston McAfee, “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus. ” American Economic Review, 73 “On Lookout Cows and the Methodology of (September 1983); Warren Samuels, Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues, 22 (1988); John J. Siegfried, “A First Lesson in Econometrics.” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (1970); and Richard Woodman, “A Devils Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979). Edi Karni and Barbara Shapiro, “Tales of Horror from Ivory Towers.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980). Ibid, p. 210. Ibid, p. 211. Ibid, p. 212. Preston McAfee, “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus.” American Economic Review, 73 (September 1983). Ibid, p. 735. Ibid, p. 736. Ibid, p. 737. “A Devils Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Richard Woodman, Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979). Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. For example; Royal Brandis “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), Kenneth Brown, “The Short Reign of Academic Economism.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 80 (1972), Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Handbook.” Journal of Political Journal, (1974) George Stigler, “The Conference Economy, 85 (1977), Victor Tremblay and Lawrence Wohl, “The Thick Point Theorem.” Journal of Economic Education, (Summer 1988), Joe Walker, “Life Among the Finan.” Journal of Portfolio Management, (Summer 1989). Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, (1974). Ibid, p. 347. Ibid, p. 349. Ibid, p. 35 1. Ibid, p. 357-358. Joe Walker, “Life Among theFinan.” Journal ofPort$olioManagement, (Summer 1989). Ibid, p. 8. George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1977). Ibid, p. 441. Ibid, p. 442. Ibid, p. 443. Ibid, p. 443. For example; Victor Tremblay , and Lawrence Wohl, “The Thick Point Theorem.” Journal of Economic Education, (Summer 1988), and Kenneth Brown, “The Short Reign of Academic Economism.” Journal of Political Economy, 80 (1972).
242
59.
60.
61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.
68. 69.
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 2WNo.
2/1991
For example; Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, 1974, and Joe Walker, “Life Among the Finan.” Journal of Portfolio Management, (Summer 1989). For example; Royal Brandis, “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), and George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 8.5 (1977). Aristides, “What’s So Funny?” American Scholar, 53 (1984), p. 441. Warren Samuels, “On Lookout Cows and the Methodology of Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues, 22 (1988). Richard Woodman, “A Devil’s Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979): 15. George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal of Political Economy, 85 ( 1977). Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, (1974). Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1963), p. 1. It has been noted, for example, that all the economists laid end to end, couldn’t reach a conclusion. And some have sought a one-handed economists, so that her statements would not always be qualified with “on the other hand.” Finally, there is the argument among the Astronomer, the Theologian, and the Economist regarding which is the oldest profession. The Astronomer argues that the universe is billions of years old, the Theologian argues that it was God who created the universe from chaos. The Economist counters with “who do you think created the chaos?’ Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1963), p. 1. Aristides, “What’s So Funny?” American Scholar, 83 (Autumn 1984), p. 445.
MARGARET
A. RAY*
Texas Christian
University
In 1899 Thomas Carlyle christened economics “The Dismal Science.” Since that time, the view of economics as dismal has persisted. But all economists and all writings by economists are not as humorless as this reputation indicates. There have been humorous writings in economics as long as there has been an economics literature. Beginning in Victorian England, this article traces the use of humor by economists. The sardonic work of Bastiat, Mandeville and Veblen are examined in terms of Heilbroner’s “underworld of economics.” The focus of the article then becomes humor in the economics literature during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Authors have used persiflage to poke fun at a wide variety of topics, concentrating on economic theory, research methods, and the conduct of the profession as the source of humor.
HUMOR
IN ECONOMICS
Thomas Carlyle is credited with christening 1899.’ John Kenneth Galbraith writes:
economics
“The
Dismal
Science”
in
There was a final, if unintentional, Malthusian legacy, one for which he was responsible along with Ricardo. Economics would hereafter be associated with an atmosphere of unrelieved pessimism and gloom, and economists would be given the name and reputation (by way of Carlyle) that survives to this day, that of the “Respectable Professors of the Dismal Science.“2 Perhaps this view of Economics as “The Dismal Science” has persisted due to recurring economic forecasts reminiscent of Malthus and Chicken Little, or perhaps undergraduates have had a hand in propagating the view as they trudged through courses in economic theory. Indeed, in general, the social sciences are known more for squelching, rather than quenching the human appetite for humor, Whatever the reason, the characterization remains with the profession. *Direct all correspondence to: Margaret A. Ray, Department Worth, TX 76129. Telephone: (817) 921-7230.
of Economics,
The Social Science Journal, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 227-242. Copyright 0 1991 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.
Texas Christian
University,
Fort
228
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
But are all economists, and all scholarly publications by economists, as humorless as this dismal reputation indicates? This article attempts to soften that reputation by considering humor and satire in economists’ academic publications. The purpose of this article is to present, as a body of literature, humorous papers published in economics journals. I intend to demonstrate how economists use humor to address serious issues relating to the dominant paradigms in economic theory, the research methods employed by the discipline, and the conduct of the economics profession. Humor is used by economists as a way to demand attention to an idea, a way to create role distance, a way to address issues on multiple levels, and a way to hold others in the profession accountable for their statements and actions. Much has been written about the role of humor in communication and social interaction. Students of humor have considered many and varied questions about the role of humor in social re1ationships.j One common theme, however, is how humor becomes a meaningful form of communication in both everyday and specialized contexts. Gary Alan Fine, for instance, addressed humorous interaction as a social construction of meaning; Three features of jocular interaction are of particular relevance for understanding humor’s position in communication. First, humorous interaction demands an immediate response from its listeners. Second, humorous interaction typically allows its animator considerable role distance, so that the implications of a jocular remark can be denied. Third, humorous interaction as a metaphorical construction contains dense layers of meaning, and these meanings give it a significance beyond its denotative import.” In the specialized context of academia an author using humor is able to present a potentially controversial idea in a way that demands an immediate response from the reader. In addition, humor allows the author to distance herself from the seriousness of the subject matter, facilitating denial of controversial statements. Perhaps most importantly, humor allows the author to present a humorous discussion which contains much deeper meanings. The “dense layers of meaning” contained in humorous academic papers address important and solemn issues in a unique way. Both the author and the reader are allowed to escape the gravity of the subject matter while considering at other levels, important issues addressed in the literature. Michael Flaherty notes, it is not difficult to envision how burdensome reality work must seem to human beings who toil, day in and day out, to uphold those taken-for-granted presuppositions which comprise social reality. Nor is it hard to imagine why people enjoy leavening their mundane reality work with what I choose to call “reality play .“5
Nor is it hard to see why some economists choose to shed some of the burden of their potentially dismal reality work in favor of reality play in the form of humorous papers. Fine’s three components of jocular interaction “permit an examination of how social actors strategically employ humor in natural interaction to altercast others (and
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
229
Science
use humor to rebut the define themselves) and to redefine situations.“6 Economists ideas of others, to define their own views and to attempt to redefine the dominant economic paradigms. The influence of these papers is unclear, but no great shift in paradigms can as yet be attributed to them. Often the papers cited here speak to the economics discipline in particular. Because humor depends on a shared language and universe of discourse, what causes economists to laugh uproariously might be lost on outsiders. By nature, the humor is “inside.” However, the general themes of most of these papers could and may have been applied throughout the social science disciplines. As an anonymous referee noted, “. . the points made. . . seemed to apply quite readily to my own discipline of sociology. I know anthropologists are funny, and, if we can believe Mel Brooks, there might even be a few stand up philosophers.“’
HUMOR
IN THE LITERATURE
Humor has been used to comment on economics as long as there has been an economics literature. It was in Victorian England where, “A new professordom took over the main life of economic thought.“8 This professordom (e.g. Alfred Marshall, W. Stanley Jevons, Frances Edgeworth) began introducing mathematics into economic theory. Ideas relying on Felicific Calculus, Mathematical Psychics and the Calculus of Pleasure and Pain became dominant in an economics in which every man is a Benthamesque pleasure machine. And so, economics of cranks world of behavior Victorian doubtings
as a counterpart to this pale world of equations, an underworld of flourished. There had always been such an underworld, a strange limbo and heretics. . . There was simply no longer any room in the official economics for those who wanted to take the whole gamut of of human for their forum, and there was little tolerance in the stuffy world of correctness for those whose diagnosis of society left room for moral or seemed to indicate the need for radical reform.9
An early example of underworld satire appeared in the early 1700’s, when Bernard Mandeville wrote Fable of the Bees .I0 This fable uses a colony of bees as the setting of an economy to present Mandeville’s sophism. Bernard Mandeville . I shocked the eighteenth century with a witty demonstration that virtue was vice and vice virtue. Mandeville merely pointed out that the profligate expenditure of the sinful rich gave work to the poor, while stingy rectitude of the virtuous penny pincher did not; hence, said Mandeville, private immorality may redound to the public welfare, whereas private uptightness may be a social burden.”
Heilbroner further points out that Mandeville’s work was not appreciated by his contemporaries. It was convicted as a public nuisance by a grand jury in Middlesex in 1723 and “roundly castigated” by Adam Smith.
THE
230
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
Frederic Bastiat presents another example of an early economist using humor. His book, Economic Sophisms I* “is as close to humor as economics has ever come. . Bastiat had a gift for pointing out absurdities.“” A classic example of Bastiat’s masterful economic satire is his petition to the candlemakers: PETITION TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAXLIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING To Messieurs
the Members
of the Chamber
of Deputies
Gentlemen. We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to our own for the production of light, that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. This rival is no other than the sun. What we pray for is that it may please you to pass a law ordering the shutting up of all windows, skylights, dormer-windows, inside and outside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull’s_eyes; in a word of all openings, chinks, and fissures.14
Bastiat uses satire to attack the prevailing economic paradigm in this and other sophisms. But “official economics” did not seem to take notice of the paradoxes which Bastiat and Mandeville pointed out in their satirical writings. Others have tried using humor to forestall the complete mathematization of economics. Perhaps the most well-known eccentric writing in Heilbroner’s underworld is Thorstein Veblen. To understand much of Veblen’s writing, the reader must possess both intellectual sophistication and a sense of humor. Veblen adeptly uses sardonic passages to illustrate the absurdity he saw in the Calculus of Pleasure and Pain being increasingly applied to economic problems. I5 Veblen and other writers throughout the history of the discipline used humor to criticize this paradigm which was to become dominant in economics.
HUMOR
IN MODERN
ECONOMICS
Does a form of Heilbroner’s Underworld still exist in modem (1970’s and 1980’s) economics? Unlike the recognized areas of specialization, the literature involving humor is written by a diverse group, with no authors leading the “field” of humor. But contributors are generally leaders in their own particular established field. Alan Blinder, Martin Feldstein, George Stigler, and Axe1 Leijonhufvud are names familiar to most, if not all, current economists. Clearly, these authors are not generally considered cranks or heretics. Humorous articles appearing in academic journals during the past two decades target three general areas: economic theory, research methods in economics, and the conduct of the profession in academia.16 Each of these areas is made fun of periodically,
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
231
Science
with economic theory taking the brunt of the joke most often. Some humorous are equally irreverent toward all three categories.
works
Economic Theory The use of humor, especially exaggeration, to poke fun at economic theories is common in the literature of the past two decades. ” There is no prejudice against either micro- or macro-theory; economists mock each with equal fervor. Alan Blinder’s work, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth” addresses the universal application of microeconomic theory that some modem thinkers would have us pursue: The ever-growing literature on human capital has long recognized that the scope of theory extends well beyond the traditional analysis of schooling and on-the-job training. Migration, maintenance of health, crime and punishment, even marriage and suicide, are all decisions which can usefully be considered from the human capital point of view. Yet economists have ignored the analysis of an important class of activities which can and should be brought within the purview of the theory. A Prime example of this class is brushing teeth.18 Blinder indicates that the analysis can “also be applied to such important topics as combing hair, washing hair, and cutting fingernails.” The model developed and tested in this paper replaces the existing “‘bad taste in one’s mouth’ model” and “‘mother told me so’ theory,” with a model in which “each individual does whatever amount of toothbrushing will maximize his income” (or at least he behaves as if he maximized income). In reviewing the literature, Blinder finds a substantial literature on the brushing of teeth; however, most of the existing literature is dental rather than economic. He finds this surprising since most economists brush their teeth (though this can be disputed). He summarizes a recent survey from a leading Eastern university: It was found that assistant professors brushed 2.14 times daily on average, while associate professors brushed only 1.89 times and full professors only 1.47 times daily. The author, a sociologist, mistakenly attributed this finding to the fact that the higher-ranking professors were older and that hygiene standards had advanced steadily over time. To a human capital theorist, of course, this pattern is exactly what would be expected from the higher wages received in the higher professional ranks, and from the fact that younger professors, looking for promotions, cannot afford to have bad breath.19 Blinder then develops his formal model of dental hygiene and tests the model empirically using data collected from the Federal Brushing Institute (FBI?). He finds that “the survey data strikingly confirm the predictions of the theoretical model presented here. “‘*” The paper is indeed another success of the “Princeton oral tradition.” Blinder’s paper is strikingly similar to the plethora of papers applying microeconomic theory which appeared during the 1970’s and 1980’s. The organization and progression are similar to those of papers applying microeconomics to everything from art to zebras.21 Some economists subscribe to the universality of microeconomic theory. Blinder’s paper on brushing teeth and other applied microeconomics papers
232
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 2WNo.
2/1991
take applications to the extreme. These authors use microeconomic theory to “analyze” trivial or absurd problems (brushing teeth, rationally demanding psychiatric help, or explaining the land/population ratio for Canadian football). Layered in the jocularity is the attempt to illustrate that thinking of microeconomics as the explanation of all behavior is, to say the least, venturesome. In macroeconomics, humorous papers often reflect the views of the different schools of thought. In a 1982 paper, Dennis Snower mocks several of these schools by examining the macroeconomic policy which leads to the socially optimal level of vampire destruction: Although human beings have endured the recurring ravages of vampires for centuries, scarcely any attempts have been made to analyze the macroeconomic implications of this problem and to devise socially optimal policy responses. Despite the increasing incidence of vampire epidemics in recent years, vampirism remains a thoroughly neglected topic in the theory of macroeconomic policy. their most conspicuous macroeconomic impact arises from their detrimental effect on the labor force.**
Snower notes an existing microeconomic study in which vampire behavior is modeled using the implicit assumption of the “invisible fang” but rejects this behavioral model Snower provides a “framework for as having “questionable validity .“23 Alternatively, the synthesis of vampirism and macroeconomics” using a mathematically rigorous mode1.24 He derives a vampire neutrality theorem and suggests further research to incorporate rational expectations into his vampire destruction model. Snower’s model relies on the assumptions that “the ‘representative vampire’ requires an exogenously given amount of blood per unit of time” and “human beings procreate at an exogenously given rate.” Applying these assumptions, Snower derives the Vampire Impossibility Theorem. When the production trade-off is between widgets and stakes, “if the number of stakes per vampire remains below the critical level. . . it is not possible for the human race to survive.“25 However, the complete destruction of vampires is shown, under plausible conditions, to be socially sub-optimal. A second theorem derived from Snower’s theoretical model is the Vampire Neutrality Theorem: The spontaneous generation of vampires (i.e., the the appearance of vampires ex nihlo) affects the optimal x and s in the short run but not the long run. In other words, vampires are neutral in the long run. This theorem follows immediately from the fact that, in the long run, the socially . This optimal stationary state (x*, s*) does not depend on the initial conditions. principle maybe summarized by the aphorism “vampires are a veil.“2h
Thus, Snower concludes that vampires have the same long-run effect on the macroeconomy as money has in the traditional monetarist model. Keynesians are not ignored, as Snower notes that “In addition to stakes, crosses (of the non-Keynesian variety) may hold vampires at bay.“27 As suggestion for further research, the paper points out that
The Lighter Side of the Dismal Science
233
. since both humans and vampires are known to exploit all the economic rent at their disposal, the study of human-vampire interrelations under rational expectations promises to be an important area of future economic research. After all, there is alot at stake.28 Snower ends his paper by mocking microeconomic foundations as well as rational expectations in macroeconomic theory. Thus, Snower is irreverent toward most of the dominant macroeconomic theories. The irreverence Snower shows serves the purpose of making the academic context meaningful, in a somewhat twisted sense of the term. The well-defined macroeconomic schools of thought have led to an abundance of humorous articles.29 The authors’ persiflage brings out differences between the schools of thought, showing the preferred ideology as superior. This raillery allows authors to address alternative ideas without the solemn criticism often found in the literature.
Research Methods The jesting, however, is not reserved for economic theory. The research methods used in economics are also frequently the subject of ridicule.30 The increasing emphasis economists place on statistical technique makes their research methods a good target for humor. The level and complexity of the research methods employed by economists threatens to obscure both the research questions and answers. For instance, Edi Kami and Barbara Shapiro introduce economists to “Tales of Horror for Ivory Towers.“3’ They tell the story of data torture taking place in universities across the nation: Stunned disbelief swept across the nation’s universities yesterday, following the release of a report by an investigatory committee looking into charges of data torture. Following a massive, 6-month probe, the Committee on the Mistreatment of Raw Data (COMRAD) unearthed the widespread use by academic researchers of “unorthodox techniques applied during the routine investigation of innocent data.“. . Among the studies most shocking findings was the discovery of the “lacerating mauling” of data by electronic means.32 This data torture, they discover, may have led to the unwitting publication of “false confessions” from data. The “strong-arm tactics” uncovered by the committee include the “gradualist syndrome” and the “maxixalist method.“33 The gradualist syndrome uses progressively heavy doses of pressure until the data yields its insights. The maximalist method begins the inquisition with the immediate application of the most forceful methods, such as third-degree autoregressive processes or third-degree polynomial structures. The routine application of the Cochrane-Orcutt method and two-stage least-squares procedures is also reported. COMRAD conducted interviews with people associated with the University as part of the investigation. An acquaintance of an indicted professor is quoted as saying, “He is a family man and a good neighbor, . . . I would never have believed Curt was capable of detrending.” The report gives a possible explanation for the abuses:
234
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
IOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
Speculating on possible causes of the abuses, one observer suggested that the constant pressure to publish may have strained some researchers to the point where questions of ethics became secondary. Moral apathy on the part of the public at large and a lack of concern from theoreticians within the universities were also blamed.j4 Karni and Shapiro use this fictional report to discuss, with great wit, problems becoming increasingly important in empirical research. The paper uses humor as a way to be instructive without being accusatory. It points out the possibility and the consequences of “going too far” to find empirical support for economic theory, without suggesting that there should be no empirical research. Preston McAfee mocks a technique and also a specific paper [Robert Fogel’s “A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Railroads in American Economic Growth”35]. He imitates the counter-factual technique employed by Fogel in the Journal of Economic History, creating a bogus analysis to answer the question “What would the world be like today, if Columbus had indeed fallen off the edge of the earth?” McAfee’s sardonic paper is laced with sarcasm, witticisms, and puns. His footnotes and references show complete irreverence for counter-factual analysis. For example, papers in the “literature review” consider “what if Fogel had never written his paper?” and “if Fogel were conceived on a train, he would have utilized more traditional methods in Economic History?“3h McAfee introduces his hypothesis: it is hypothesized that, rather than stumble upon the two American continents, Columbus fell off the edge of the earth. Certainly this is a valid test, for if America were to be virtually unchanged, despite not being discovered, certainly the “American century” was inevitable. 1 choose the year 2000 as a target date, and compare America as it will be in the year 2000 to the way it would have been then, had Columbus fallen off the edge.”
McAfee develops a complex model to show “that despite Columbus falling off the edge, the United States is on average substantially unchanged.” McAfee will provide proof upon receipt of $8.99 at the address provided in the paper. The results are obtained using an artificial intelligence procedure called FRAPPE. In particular, FRAPPE is useful in forecasting human events, weather, and the stock market for the next several hundred years. For the last reason, FRAPPE’s mechanics must remain a trade secret. However, the details will be published in my 2010 study posthumously. Unfortunately, the common knowledge of FRAPPE would destroy FRAPPE’s analytical ability. and thus FRAPPE will not be exploitable when generally known.38
An additional finding is that, while the U.S. remains the same, the rest of the world is drastically different. For example, “in a daring exploit, a team of Welsh divers unfastened Australia from the Pacific rim and, in dead of night. . . fasten it near the edge of the earth.” The analysis provides, as all analyses do, avenues for future research. “What would happen if one size didn’t fit all? If your mileage didn’t vary
235
The Lighter Side of the Dismal Science
depending on how you drive? If contents didn’t settle during shipping, would cardboard be elastic?’ Here and elsewhere humor mirrors serious research. Its use provides a particular type of meaning to the serious research it mocks. McAfee’s article is filled with biting sarcasm and dry wit from the first line through the references. Only careful reading will unveil the full extent of McAfee’s sophistry, which demonstrates the perceived absurdity of counter-factual analysis. One social purpose of satire is to represent a point of view that is counter to the mainstream and attempt to unseat “sacred cows” that are part of the dominant paradigm. Richard Woodman calls attention to research methods using a dictionary of research terms.39 Woodman defines an hypothesis as “a prediction based on theory formulated after an experiment is performed designed to account for the ludicrous series of events are not disproven based on experimental which have taken place.“40 Hypotheses results which attain some level of significance. Woodman defines this level as “an imaginary dividing line between casual effects and chance.“41 This level, he asserts, tells experimenters “how many replications must be performed before chance falls indicate Woodman’s cynical view of his or her way.“42 These and other definitions statistical analysis, which he defines as Mysterious, sometimes bizarre, manipulations performed upon the collected data of an experiment in order to obscure the fact that the results have no generalizable meaning for humanity. Commonly, computers are used, lending an additional air of unreality to the proceedings?’ Woodman uses his dictionary to mock behavioral research in cases where results have become the end rather than the means. Authors who use raillery to write about research methods are not ignorant of or opposed to statistical analysis they are merely pointing out that it is possible to go too far. That is, it is possible to become so concerned with methods that one loses sight of the questions. It is hoped that these definitions contain just enough truth to make us uncomfortable. Not taking ourselves too seriously helps to retain a sense of perspective, reminds us of the fallibility always present in human endeavors, and thus may serve to, strengthen our sometimes feeble attempts at science.#
The Conduct
of the Profession
A third area prone to ridicule is the conduct of academic economists.45 Periodically papers point out fatuousness within the profession, particularly Academe. Axe1 Lejonhufvud’s “Life Among the Econ”46 may be regarded as a “classic” to be read by aspiring academics. This anthropological study of the economics “tribe” looks at the behavior of university economists. The Econ tribe occupies a vast territory in the far north. Their land appears bleak and dismal to the outsider, and traveling through it makes for tough sledding; but the Econ, through a long period of adaptation, have learned to wrest a living of sorts from it.4’
236
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
IOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
The social structure of the tribe is complex. Castes and status and pecking orders permeate the existence of the members. A tribal member’s “field” gives a clear insight into his status in the tribe (Leijonhufvud’s paper ignores the existence of female tribal members). A comparison of status relationships in the different “fields” shows a definite common pattern. The dominant feature, which makes status relationships among the Econ of unique interest to the serious student, is the way status is tied to the manufacture of certain implements, called “modls.” The status of the adult male is determined by his skill at making the “modl” of his “field.” The facts (a) that the Econ are highly status motivated, (b) that status is only to be achieved by making “modls,” and (c) that most of these “modls” seen to be of little or no practical use, probably accounts for the backwardness and abject cultural poverty of the tribe.48
An important part of the tribal system is the upbringing of the young Econ or “Grad.” The process by which the “Grad” is admitted to adulthood is complex, but centers on the making of a “modl” of adequate complexity. Failure to make a “modl” complex enough or the failure of a young adult to continue making “modl” for a determined period of time will result in the member being turned out of the “dept” by the elders. “If life is hard on the young, the Econ show their compassion in the way that they take care of the elderly. Once elected an elder, the member need do nothing and will still be well taken care of.“49 The two largest castes of the Econ tribe are the “Micro” and the “Macro.” It is not clear which of the two castes is dominant; however, it is clear that the ceremonial totem used by each member determines his caste. The IS-LM totem is reserved for members of the “Macro,” while the S-D totem is reserved for the “Micro.” When a member of the “Micro” is asked why “Micro” do not intermarry with the “Macro” (or vice versa), he will answer “They make a different Modl.” Leijonhufvud provides an outlook for the future of the Econ tribe: They are poor-except for a tiny minority, miserably poor. Their population growth rate is among the highest in the world. Their land is fairly rich, but much of the natural resources that are their birth-right has been sold off to foreign interests for a mess of pottage. Many of their young are turning to pot and message. In their poverty, they are not even saved from the problems of the richer nations -travelers tell of villages half-buried in the refuse of unchecked modl-making and of the eye-sores left on the once pastoral landscape by the random strip-mining of the O’Metrs (Econometric field). It is said that even their famous Well Springs of Inspiration are now polluted. In the midst of their troubles, the Econ remain as of old a proud and warlike race. But they seen entirely incapable of “creative response” to their problems. It is plain to see what is in store for them if they do not receive outside aidJo
In a recent study, Joe Walker uses Leijonhufvud’s anthropological format to study a newly formed splinter tribe, the “Finan.“S1 The complexity of the caste system and
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
237
Science
ceremonial totems is equal that of the Econ and the prospects for their future are equally guarded. These authors implicitly make fun of “normal science” (i.e. the cumulative nature of scientific discovery). These two authors clearly believe that the discipline’s intricate status systems and complex, unrealistic models may result in irreparable damage to the discipline if of the Finan modlchanges are not made. Walker concludes, “The overspecialization making activities may well lead to the tribe’s extinction should cries for relevance or simplicity ever be heeded.“52 George Stigler turns to a specific institution within the economics profession to demonstrate his pessimism. Stigler compares the economics conference to a story about traveling salesmen. In the story, the salesmen have heard the same old jokes so many times that they know them by number. When a new member of the group ventures to tell a joke by shouting “36,” no one laughs. An older salesman informs the younger that he told the joke badly. Stigler is reminded of the salesmen when attending conferences of economists. Economists travel together a great deal, and there is no reason why the discussion of papers which follow the presentation of papers should not utilize a handbook of commentary.53
Stigler provides a preliminary list of comments which are all too frequently used at conferences. Introductory remarks are listed by letter and include, “The paper admirably solves the problem which it sets for itself; unfortunately this was the wrong problem,“54 and “Although the paper was promised three weeks ago, I received it as are designated by number and include, “Adam I entered this room.“55 Comments Smith said that, ‘The central argument is not only a tautology, it is false,‘“56 and “What happens when you extend the analysis to a later (or earlier) period?“57 Stigler presents these and others, and many remain which may be added to the list. Many economists complain bitterly about the way conferences of economists are conducted. Some boycott these meetings, but others simply continue to participate and lament the loss of a potentially effective institution. Stigler expresses the frustration that many feel; however, several comments about his analysis should be made: G! 4! These authors use humor to express their disappointment with the conduct of the economics profession. These frustrations, be they with teaching,58 researching5” or professional activities” have led some to vent their frustrations through humor. In this context, humor may be the only meaningful vehicle by which to make a critical commentary. Any other way might make the author appear disloyal. Perhaps authors seek to create awareness of the problems they see, perhaps they hope to elicit change, or perhaps they only feel the need to amuse.
CONCLUSION:
THE
ACCEPTANCE
OF HUMOR
IN ECONOMICS
In American Scholar Aristides writes, “If music be a universal language, humor is a quite particular one.“61 The use of humor in general or in particular is not accepted by all scholars. Some authors even seem to feel the need to apologize for their
238
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
2/1991
writings. Warren Samuels states in the introduction to his paper that “. . . the first [part] is a fictional report actually prepared in fun for private circulation.“62 Woodman even cites an authority! Writing around the turn of the century, Ambrose Bierce remarked that “to apologize is to lay the foundation for a future offense.” In that spirit, to those who may perceive the following as imperfectly respectful of the seriousness of our endeavors, an apology is offered in advance.63 Veblen’s work is often misunderstood or dismissed as a result of s biting wit and writing style. McAfee’s “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus” is considered by some to be one of the best modern satirical economics papers published. Some, however, including at least one author of a serious counterfactual economic history paper, see nothing funny about it. While convictions of works as a public nuisance do not occur in a formal sense as they did in Mandeville’s day, humorous papers are still “roundly castigated” by some. What, then, is the place of humor in economics? Clearly it has not been relegated to “the underworld.” The papers considered here are not written as criticism from outside. They are written by reputable economists and are published in respected “official” academic journals. These authors use humor to demand a reaction to the point they are making. The tone of the paper is jocular but in many cases the underlying meaning of the humorous paper is controversial. Humor provides the added benefit of allowing these authors to make their underlying comments in a palatable format. For example, Stiglep and Leijonhufvud’j5 attack the professions revered institutions. In so doing, they are using humor to altercast the position of others, define their own position and redefine the institutions. They are able to do this while maintaining considerable role distance. Humor facilitates acceptable criticism the economics profession, its theories and its research methods. Their humor represents the profession’s introspection. Humor can be seen not only a sign of opposition but also as a sign of status for a theory, a school of thought, or indeed the entire discipline. For a particular school of thought, being made fun of in the literature implies status in that the existence of a unique school is acknowledged. A theory must have gained considerable acceptance before it will be mocked in the literature (e.g. counterfactual analysis, rational expectations). The existence of humor from without implies status as well. Only the “chosen” disciplines are portrayed humorously. Peter Berger points out, “There are very few jokes about sociologists. This is frustrating for sociologists, especially if they compare Economists, in contrast to the sociologists, themselves with. . . the psychologists.“M are often the butt of jokes?’ Berger further notes, “The dearth of jokes about sociologists indicates, of course, that they are not as much a part of the popular Thus, humor fulfills multiple functions. It projects a imagination as psychologists.” reflective view of the discipline and, ironically, elevates the prestige of the discipline (or validates the elevated status of the discipline). Aristides makes the point that “. . . great humorists are, at bottom, people who have been driven to despair by the conduct of mankirnY9 or, in this case, perhaps
The Lighter
Side of the Dismal
Science
239
driven to despair by “the Dismal Science.” This may explain the use of humor to criticize mainstream economics. Economists who see the expansion and entrenchment of an economic paradigm with which they disagree can use humor to cope with their despair and to respond to what they see as wrong. Some may feel that economic theory, research methods, or the conduct of the profession has become so sad that its funny. Economists continue to develop and employ sophisticated theories and refined research methods. The level and complexity of economic research is indeed impressive. Economists are prolific authors, publishing volumes of research in every conceivable area. But the issues addressed by economic research, and in fact all social science research, are far from frivolous. Economists address painful issues including poverty, crime, unemployment, discrimination, environmental quality, and social welfare. It is the impetus behind much economic research that seems to have driven these economists to despair over the emphasis of style versus substance. These authors use humor to call attention to the possibility that economic theory and research methods, and indeed economists themselves, lose sight of what should be the ultimate goal of social sciences-to contribute to the understanding and solution of important social problems. Acknowledgments: The author is indebted to Caldwell L. Ray, Paul W. Grimes, John T. Harvey and Joe K. Law for their comments and suggestions. This article also benefited from insightful comments made by the editor and two anonymous referees. Thanks are also due those who helped locate the humorous articles included here. The author is solely responsible for any remaining errors or omissions.
NOTES 1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
John Kenneth Gailbraith, Economics in Perspective, Boston, 1987. Ibid, p. 81. For example; Michael G. Flaherty, “A Formal Approach to the Study of Amusement in Social Interaction,” and Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein, ” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 1984)., Mark Seckman and Carl Couch, “Jocularity, Sarcasm, and Relationships: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnogruphy, 18 (October 1989): 327-344, andErving Goffman, Encounters, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961. Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984), p. 83. Michael G. Flaherty , “A Formal Approach to the Study of Amusement in Social Interaction,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Interaction (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984), p. 75. Gary Alan Fine, “Humorous Interaction and the Social Construction of Meaning: Making Sense in a Jocular Vein,” in Norman K. Denzin (ed), Studies in Symbolic Znteruction (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1984) p. 83. Comments of an anonymous Referee.
240
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
17.
18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 28/No.
211991
Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 143. Ibid, p. 150. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, (London, 1924). Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 150. Frederic Bastiat, Economic Sophisms (New York: Putnam, 1909). Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (New York, 1980), p. 15 1. Frederic Bastiat, Fallacies of Protection, New York, 1909. Thorstein Veblen, The Place of Science in Modern Civilization (New York, 1919). The modern articles referenced here have been compiled through both formal and informal means. The collection began with articles found accidentally during other research. Later, a formal survey was sent to a cross-section of economists and a notice was placed on an electronic bulletin board, asking for help in identifying humorous articles. To be included, articles had to meet two criterion. First, the authors had to purposefully use humor or satire. This excludes articles which were received from colleagues who described the paper as “a joke.” Some colleagues suggested that whole journals publish nothing but papers that are “laughable.” These do not meet the first criteria. The second criterion was that the article actually be humorous to someone by some (albeit very low) standard. For example; Alan S. Blinder, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 82 (1974), Greg Davidson, “A Midnight Summer’s Dream.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5 (Fall 1982), Scott Gordon, “The Economics of the Afterlife.” The Journal ofPolitical Economy, 88 (1980), Jean-Claude Koeune, “On Some Unhappy Consequences of Professor Leibhafsky’s Consumers’ Demand for Psychiatric Help.” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1974), Christophger Light, “The Birth of Stagflation: A Fable.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), O.E. Covick, “The Quantity Theory of Drink-A Restatement.” Australian Economic Papers, 13 (1974), and Peter Hammond, “The Core and Economics Through the Looking-Glass.” Australian Economic Papers, 16 (1977). Alan Blinder, “The Economics of Brushing Teeth.” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1974), p. 887. Ibid, p. 889. Ibid, p. 891. “Art Investment: An Empirical Inquiry.” Southern Bruno Frey and Werner Pommerehne, Economic Journal, 56 (1989) and Margaret Ray and Paul Grimes, “Breeding Technology and Horse Industry Economics in the 1990’s.” The Horse Digest, Journal of the U.S. Horse Industry, 8 (August 1989). Policy and the Optimal Destruction of Vampires.” Dennis Snower, “Macroeconomic Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1982), p. 647. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid, p. 654. Ibid, p. 648. Ibid, p. 655. For example; Royal Brandis, “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), Greg Davidson, “A Midnight Summer’s Dream.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5 (Fall 1982), Susan Feiner and Bruce Roberts, “Marx and Keynes and Kalecki.” Journal of Economic Issues, 20 (1986), Martin Feldstein, “Twas a Night in the Sixties.” Journal of Political Economy, 89 (1981), Christopher Light, “The Birth of Stagflation: A Fable.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), and Dennis Snower,
The Lighter
30.
31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
Side of the Dismal
Science
241
“Macroeconomic Policy and the Optimal Destruction of Vampires.” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1982). For example; J. Heckman, “The Effect of Prayer on God’s Attitude Toward Man.” (Unpublished Manuscript), 1980; Edi Karni and Barbara Shapiro, “Tales of Horror from Ivory Towers.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980); Preston McAfee, “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus. ” American Economic Review, 73 “On Lookout Cows and the Methodology of (September 1983); Warren Samuels, Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues, 22 (1988); John J. Siegfried, “A First Lesson in Econometrics.” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (1970); and Richard Woodman, “A Devils Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979). Edi Karni and Barbara Shapiro, “Tales of Horror from Ivory Towers.” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980). Ibid, p. 210. Ibid, p. 211. Ibid, p. 212. Preston McAfee, “American Economic Growth and the Voyage of Columbus.” American Economic Review, 73 (September 1983). Ibid, p. 735. Ibid, p. 736. Ibid, p. 737. “A Devils Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Richard Woodman, Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979). Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. Ibid, p. 15. For example; Royal Brandis “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), Kenneth Brown, “The Short Reign of Academic Economism.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 80 (1972), Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Handbook.” Journal of Political Journal, (1974) George Stigler, “The Conference Economy, 85 (1977), Victor Tremblay and Lawrence Wohl, “The Thick Point Theorem.” Journal of Economic Education, (Summer 1988), Joe Walker, “Life Among the Finan.” Journal of Portfolio Management, (Summer 1989). Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, (1974). Ibid, p. 347. Ibid, p. 349. Ibid, p. 35 1. Ibid, p. 357-358. Joe Walker, “Life Among theFinan.” Journal ofPort$olioManagement, (Summer 1989). Ibid, p. 8. George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1977). Ibid, p. 441. Ibid, p. 442. Ibid, p. 443. Ibid, p. 443. For example; Victor Tremblay , and Lawrence Wohl, “The Thick Point Theorem.” Journal of Economic Education, (Summer 1988), and Kenneth Brown, “The Short Reign of Academic Economism.” Journal of Political Economy, 80 (1972).
242
59.
60.
61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.
68. 69.
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 2WNo.
2/1991
For example; Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, 1974, and Joe Walker, “Life Among the Finan.” Journal of Portfolio Management, (Summer 1989). For example; Royal Brandis, “An Irreverent Glossary.” Journal of Economic Issues, 6 (1972), and George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal ofPolitical Economy, 8.5 (1977). Aristides, “What’s So Funny?” American Scholar, 53 (1984), p. 441. Warren Samuels, “On Lookout Cows and the Methodology of Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues, 22 (1988). Richard Woodman, “A Devil’s Dictionary of Behavioral Science Research Terms.” Academy of Management Review, 4 (1979): 15. George Stigler, “The Conference Handbook.” Journal of Political Economy, 85 ( 1977). Axe1 Leijonhufvud, “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal, (1974). Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1963), p. 1. It has been noted, for example, that all the economists laid end to end, couldn’t reach a conclusion. And some have sought a one-handed economists, so that her statements would not always be qualified with “on the other hand.” Finally, there is the argument among the Astronomer, the Theologian, and the Economist regarding which is the oldest profession. The Astronomer argues that the universe is billions of years old, the Theologian argues that it was God who created the universe from chaos. The Economist counters with “who do you think created the chaos?’ Peter Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1963), p. 1. Aristides, “What’s So Funny?” American Scholar, 83 (Autumn 1984), p. 445.