SOften criticized, economists face two main criticisms. Some find us too present in public debate or among decision-makers. Others, including decision-makers, sometimes find us too disconnected from reality and its constraints. Accused of being omnipresent or useless, economists, on the contrary, have the impression of not being listened to enough and of being able to contribute more to the common good. Who to believe? And what are economists really for?
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers “Economics is a science of “how”: it studies how to allocate and produce scarce resources to achieve societal objectives”
Read later
Economics is above all a set of skills, which can hardly be criticized for being too widespread or useless. These skills are multiple. Despite great progress, the profession is sometimes still too homogeneous in terms of faces – men, often with similar social and educational origins – and therefore in looks. But it is rich in methodological approaches, which feed off each other: from theoretical models to empirical analyses, from a very “micro” focus (with the mass of new, very precise data which makes it possible to study behavior in detail) to essential macroeconomic perspectives.
These skills allow us to shed light on the trade-offs underlying many decisions and lead us to always ask ourselves what could have been done instead and what the outcome would have been. They also lead us to be very careful in interpreting the facts.
For example, the temporal coincidence of two phenomena does not necessarily mean that one is the cause of the other. It takes a lot of rigor to be able to determine what the trajectory of inflation or unemployment would have been in the absence of this or that decision. And the conditions are not always met to be able to conclude with certainty.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers Jean Pisani-Ferry: “Why are we experiencing such a contradiction between the universality of problems and the fragmentation of responses? »
Read later
These skills also allow us to overcome ideological preconceptions and produce and understand sometimes counterintuitive results. No, technical progress does not necessarily destroy jobs: on the contrary, it creates them if productivity gains allow companies to gain market share and grow. No, an increase in the minimum wage does not necessarily destroy jobs; this is not the case if companies can pass on the increase in their price; this is not the case in countries (or sectors) where it remains profitable for them to keep employees by paying them more.
You have 45.11% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
