Some 45 years ago, C.P. Snow wrote about “the two cultures,” arguing that scientists and literary folk knew little about each other’s fields and that communication between the two groups was increasingly difficult.
Perhaps Snow’s idea also applies to the methodological gulf that yawns between economists and attorneys.
Economics centers on the idea that society prospers when benefits of any course of action are weighed against costs. Private individuals instinctively do this in everyday decisions about their own time and money. The process is somewhat harder when the resources are owned by a group, such as the citizens of a state, rather than by an individual or a firm.
Economists would say the general principle of weighing costs against benefits still is important, but would acknowledge that quantifying costs and benefits of government actions may be difficult.
Lawyers, especially those in public office, seem to shy away from weighing the pros and cons of government policies or spending. Some observers argue this stems from their training in our adversarial legal system. We expect attorneys to stand before judges and juries and make the best possible case for whatever clients they represent. If, instead, they carefully explained all the ways the law and evidence hurt and favored their clients, they would commit legal malpractice.
The issue arises in Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s recent proposals to increase the proportion of ethanol required in gasoline in Minnesota and to mandate use of vegetable oils as “biodiesel.” Pawlenty, who is also a lawyer, correctly argues that these measures will achieve some environmental benefits and may benefit corn and soybean producers with higher prices.
But he studiously avoids estimating either the value of these benefits or the costs to taxpayers and consumers. From an economist’s point of view, he presents less than half of the relevant equation.
If there is anything on which economists agree, it is that arbitrary mandates are the most expensive way of achieving environmental improvement or raising farm incomes. Indeed, decades of evaluating environmental and income support programs offer overwhelming evidence that such mandates are inefficient and do little to achieve the goals despite high costs. They make society worse off rather than better.
There is no Republican-Democrat split among economists on this issue. Indeed, Republican economists generally are more scathing in their criticisms of the governor’s approach than are their Democratic colleagues.
Nor does criticism of his proposals, as Pawlenty often asserts, spring from “ivory tower economists” out of touch with the real world. Environmental economists in state and federal agencies, in private business and in the major environmental organizations would form a united front with their counterparts in academia on this issue.
The governor obviously is sincere in his environmental concerns. The question is why he ignores the counsel of economists from his own party. Is the gulf separating the two cultures really that wide?
© 2004 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.