You are here:   Academia > The Serendipity of Genius
 

The situation was, however, altogether different for Vernon Smith, whose parents left school at 14. His father provided the work ethic and can-do knowledge, while his mother was active in political and social affairs in the community. Financial problems forced the family to practise self-sufficiency on a farm for a couple of years. The situation of James Buchanan was similar to Smith's. His family lived on a farm throughout his youth. His father had gone through two years of university training ("and played football"). His mother, however, had been a schoolteacher. She was endowed with an exemplary work ethic and a voracious intellectual appetite. Both character traits, as it seems, have left an important and lasting impact on the son. 

Even without much schooling, therefore, parents can provide their children with intellectual appetite and a motivation for achievement. Discussions at the dinner table, or other regular family gatherings, are extremely important — and it doesn't matter much how high-powered the arguments are. What is crucial is that the awareness is raised-awareness about the importance of certain topics relating to economics and economic policy, to anything that touches social questions and of course the appetite to learn more about them. 

This is an experience that most laureates share. Smith was fascinated to discover at college that the topics that had been debated at the dinner table were actually "things you could study, that it needn't be only a matter of opinion. You could actually base your opinions on analysis, on investigation, on some kind of understanding about how society and how the economy work". In the Buchanan household, discussions were more about politics. 

Worldviews also play a role in instigating academic research. As Schumpeter put it, worldviews enter the "pre-analytic cognitive act" or "vision" that "supplies the raw material for the analytic effort". To some extent, a person's worldview is usually shaped at home, in the family, actively and passively, perhaps also during dinner table conversations. This "initial endowment" may however fade away as new influences come in later in life. Interestingly, in the case of the ten Nobel laureates I interviewed, the initial ideological endowments were mostly socialist. There is a saying that a person who, as a youngster, is not a socialist, has no heart — and a person who still remains a socialist in later years has no brain. There may be something to it. Smith comes from a socialist background. Becker was a socialist, just like his father, who "although he was a pretty successful businessman, strongly supported interventionist-type candidates". North was an outright Marxist. Arrow regarded himself as a socialist ("not a communist"). Buchanan doesn't make such a fine distinction. He came from a populist background, but when he turned to economics, his peer group lured him over to socialism. "I would have signed up immediately to the Communist Party had a recruiter come along," he says. As predicted by the popular saying, however, those initial ideological endowments indeed didn't last. In Buchanan's case, it was the University of Chicago that turned him around, "and in a hurry". 

The same happened to Becker, who remembers that two things pulled him away from socialism: Milton Friedman and economics. When North got his first job at Seattle, he relearned theory — and, as he says, this "was the last step in my getting rid of Marxism. As I relearned theory, I became a very rigid neoclassical, Chicago-type economist". As the Nobel laureates moved on with their schooling and academic training, they came across teachers and mentors who, in most cases, played a decisive role. These mentors managed to entice their intellectual appetite even more, opened up interesting new fields for them, gave them good advice and urged them ultimately to stay in academia. The role of teachers is as important as it is psychologically interesting. Teachers provide the intellectual socialisation, and they are role models. This is clear from Becker's experience with Milton Friedman at Chicago. "He was by far the greatest living teacher I have ever had," Becker says. But Becker ultimately had to defend his intellectual autonomy some years later, deciding to move on to Columbia University. Buchanan was in Frank Knight's wake, while in Smith's case, Wassily Leontief and Gottfried Haberler and especially Edward Chamberlin, left their mark. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Don Gooding
October 17th, 2009
2:10 PM
Thanks for this perspective - it resonates with me, as someone re-entering economics after a career in the economic trenches (aka business). You validate my own discomfort with economic orthodoxy, and it's invigorating to hear about intellectual entrepreneurs forging new paths while remaining humble about what we don't yet understand.

Business Ph.D., liberal arts BA
October 4th, 2009
4:10 AM
I do agree that in recent decades, to a disturbing extent, a large majority of PhDs in economics have been awarded to philistines. In my experience, the typical economists under 50 scorns the liberal arts requirements typical of North American undergrad degrees, and has a naive scientistic admiration for science and math. They do know some math and statistics, but seldom know any science. Properly taught, science can be highly humanizing. A society run by the public policy prescription of the typical economist trained in the past 20-30 years is a society that would edge towards terminal conflict, self-destruction, and bureaucratic fascism. The views of academic economists about departmental and university politics are not a pretty sight. Economists believe that administrators should enjoy a maximum of discretion, forgetting that such discretion is likely to result in administrators' feathering their own nests and trampling on the rights of others. Keynes could write beautifully for the wider educated public, but he forgot that fact when he wrote the General Theory. At the same time, he also was fast forgetting technical economics. Hence the General Theory was badly written. It began to make sense with Hicks's IS-LM model. We did not really understand what Keynes was on about until Pigou and Modigliania worked out the full algebra and calculus details in 1943 and 44. Our ancestors eventually settled on Keynes having worked out the consequences of assuming certain "rigidities" in wage and price setting. When Keynes wrote, what came to be called classical or "market clearing" macroeconomics was poorly understood. It was Pigou and Modigliani who began to clarify the opposition between Keynes and the Classics. I should grant that rabid Keynesians often asserted that Keynes had said much more than this. I do not blame the current recession on decentralised market economies, or cowboy financial markets, or "capitalism." I blame it on the American bipartisan obsessive belief that dysfunctional people will clean up their acts if they become homeowners. Several million mortgages were granted to people who were very poor risks. When they were unable to meet their payments, house prices began to fall, which given the laxity of American creditor-borrower law, only made things much worse. Deep down, we do not know why the UK, Ireland, Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand remain growing innovating societies under the rule of law and democratic due process. That many of the grand old men of neoliberal economics today were New Dealers and socialists when they were 20 is a telling indicator of the great ideological sea-change that has taken place over the past 70 years. We all believe in decentralised markets regulated by business law. Note the economic and political difficulties many post-Communist nations have had since 1990. I suspect that there are other unstated institutional assumptions underlying our political and economic order.

Anonymous
September 27th, 2009
10:09 PM
Lord Keynes was all of these capacities and more. His General Theory whilst not set in concrete overcame the Classical Economists dream time and proven the Chicago school of free marketeers as worse than dreamers, because their teachings led to plunder.

Anonymous
September 27th, 2009
1:09 PM
The institutional achievements of Western civilisation, such as individual liberty, the free market and the rule of law. It is probably the reigning assumption of the free market which is primarily at fault in the current crisis. Markets are rarely free, and to the degree that they are, instability is as common a result as equilibrium.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.