MB: What makes a good economist? Last week there were several posts in the blogosphere debating the success of current economists and the usefulness of the field? Some economists such as David Levine from Washington University claim that there have been great developments in economics over the last several decades; while other economists such as Paul Krugman state that “Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems”. Despite all of the accusations on either side of the debate, there is a more important issue that needs to be addressed for future economists and that is; what makes a good economist?
Professor of Economics at Harvard University, Greg Mankiw gives advice to aspiring economists, he suggests taking as many math courses as possible in undergrad studies, follow economic news, read economics for fun, and attend economic research seminars if possible. There is no arguing that young economists that are actively involved in the field will become more educated. Furthermore suggestions to become a better economist are seemingly endless, one individuals perspective on what makes a good economist is likely to be different than another’s.
So I set out to find evidence on what characteristics make up a good economist. As expected with a Google search I was bombarded with a number of vague indecisive theories on what makes a good economist. Rather than simply doing a Google search and reading other peoples theories on the topic, I decided to analyze the characteristics of notable, reputable, and successful economists.
In doing so I found an assortment of similarities between the economists; first and most obvious was that they are all very intelligent. There is no arguing that intelligence is a contributing factor to success in any field; with this said and its blatancy I decided not to include intelligence as the primary characteristic of a good economist.
In addition to intelligence one must have a deep passion for the dismal science, constant analysis of data, news and other relevant information is crucial to the success of an economist; however, yet again I do not feel that passion is the primary source of success.
Though intelligence and passion are key characteristics of a successful economist, I found that there was one other that stood out more than these two. The ability for an individual to see economics in everything is the primary characteristic of a successful economist. I challenge anyone to look around the room they are in right now and find something in it that cannot be related to economics or the economy (national or global).
For example the majority of people will look at their pencil as a writing utensil, which it is, but a good economist will look at a pencil and see not just a tool for writing but markets and industries, they will think of how the product was manufactured and where. They will take this information and analyze the markets that contributed to the making of the pencil and determine the impact the pencil has on the economy; the history of the markets, their cycles and future are all taking into consideration. This ability to see the economy in everything is not a characteristic that all economist have, however it is a characteristic that all “good” economist have.
I have concluded that there are three characteristics that make a good economist, intelligence, passion, and most essential the ability to see the economy in everything.
In further defense of economists, inaccurate predictions do not mean that economists are bad or invaluable; it simply means that it is the dismal science and is often unpredictable due to the number of uncertain variables. Seeing economics in everything reduces the number of uncertain variables allowing economists to make better more accurate predictions.
Popularity: 13%
