Does economics do more harm than good? And if it does, how would we know harm when we see it?
In 1849, the historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle referred to economics as the “dismal science.” The pejorative stuck, and is still slung by critics of the field today.
But what if economics is worse than “dismal”? What it’s…harmful?
George DeMartino’s recent book, “The Tragic Science: How Economists Cause Harm (Even as They Aspire to Do Good)”, makes exactly that claim: that economists aren’t just ineffective at solving social problems; they often end up creating new ones. Worse still – since economics lacks a meaningful criteria for defining what harm is, economists often don’t know how to measure (and fix) the problems they create.
George is an economist himself, and his work isn’t just a pile-on against the field. Rather, his critique points a way towards a more socially engaged version of economics – one that takes the notion of harm seriously.
