Tyler Cowen links to this report that “economists comprised only 6 percent of guest appearances discussing stimulus on cable news, Sunday shows.”
That sounds pretty good to me! I can’t imagine that political scientists make up anything close to 6% of the TV commenters on political topics. I doubt it’s 0.6%. My recommendation to economists: quit complaining and treasure the 6% you have!
Related: Why are there so few economists in elected office?:
There were 139,000 economists employed in the United States, which reprsented 0.1% of the employed population. 1% of 535 is about 1/2, so with at least two economists in Congress, the profession is hardly unrepresented. . . . even throwing in economics professors and various other practicing economists, I still don’t think it would add up to the half-million that would be necessary to reach 2/535 of the employed population. . . . perhaps Congress would indeed be better if it included more economists–but rather to note that people with this sort of job are a small minority in the U.S. (In contrast, there were 720,000 physicians, 170,000 dentists, and 2.1 million nurses, and 1.7 million health technicans in the U.S.)
To put it another way, without reference to economists (or to the 2.1 million “mathematical and computer scientists” out there): the Statistical Abstract has 260,000 psychologists. Certainly Congress would be better off with a few psychologists, who might understand how citizens might be expected to react to various policies. . . . and what about the 114,000 biologists? A few of these in Congress might advance the understanding of public health. And then there are the 290,000 civil engineers–I’d like to have a few of them around also. I’d also like some of the 280,000 child care workers and 620,000 pre-K and kindegarten teachers to give their insight on deliberations on family policy. And the 1.1 million police officers and 340,000 prison guards will have their own perspectives on justice issues. . . .
I think the point is that on the margin, increasing the share of economic commentators who have advanced economic training and research experience would (in my opinion and the opinion of those you cite) improve people's understanding of the issues.
I would also be happy to see political scientists account for a greater share of the commentary on political topics.
The argument is the same regarding who we elect to public office. Why don't we elect more people with expertise in evaluating public policy?
Phil Gramm and Dick Armey have since retired. By my count, that makes 0 economists in Congress. Clearly, then, we're underrepresented.
I find statements like "Congress would indeed be better if it included more economists" a bit odd, because it gives the impression that Congress picks and choose their members. But Members of Congress are elected and even though one could make the claim that voters don't want to vote for let's say an economist, I think a much more reasonable assumption is that a lot of economists are not interested in running for public office. After all, compared to salaries in the industry, public office probably pays much less…