The American Spectator

Buy the Book

Romeo v. Juliet

By Joseph Lawler on 6.23.08 @ 12:06AM

(Page 2 of 2)

Thus people aren't in fact holding out for their "one true love" -- despite what they might say. Harford uses this finding as part of his argument in favor of divorce: if people don't have one and only one significant other, they shouldn't be bound to their spouses permanently.

Belot and Francesconi's study, however, is limited in its conclusions because of the weakness of using data from a dating service for which the participants to register and pay a fee. Aren't the people most likely to go speed-dating also the most likely to have lower ideals of love?

No Romeos or Juliets are likely to register for something as shallow as a speed date.

THESE ARE MERELY two examples of slight misinterpretations in a book crammed full of intricate studies, yet it is not nitpicking to mention them. They encapsulate the weaknesses that characterize pop-economic books in general and The Logic of Life in particular.

Ignoring details undermines econometrics' predictive power and reduces its conclusions to mere opinions. Harford wants to portray economics as a brutally rational and value-free way of thought, but he thwarts himself by including examples that incorporate faulty assumptions.

Taking a page out of his book, though, I could explain Harford's oversight using rational choice theory: It makes sense for Harford to sacrifice some precision to maintain the breezy attitude with which he sheds light on racism, the allure of cities, etc. His aloofness while giving immediately obvious explanations for phenomena once thought of as life's mysteries leaves the reader feeling smart enough to solve all the world's problems using the economist's tools.

Harford states his aim in the introduction: "...it is a world in which people can generally be expected to make rational decisions, and where those rational decisions suggest some astonishing explanations for many of life's mysteries. It is this world that I would like to show to you." He accomplishes this goal handily. The reader comes away impressed with the brute power of choice.

But in economics, for every good the costs must be considered along with the benefits. I would suggest that Harford consider the costs of drawing too many questionable conclusions from tentative research -- for how it will affect those who can't tell the difference.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Economics, Abortion, Books, Law