What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragic Science: How Economists Cause Harm
A forceful critique of the social science that has ruled—and damaged—the modern world.
The practice of economics, as economists will tell you, is a powerful force for good. Economists are the guardians of the world’s economies and financial systems. The applications of economic theory can alleviate poverty, reduce disease, and promote sustainability.
While this narrative has been successfully propagated by economists, it belies a more challenging economic interventions, including those economists deem successful, also cause harm. Sometimes the harm is manageable and short-lived. But just as often the harm is deep, enduring, and even irreparable. And too often the harm falls on those least able to survive it.
In The Tragic Science , George F. DeMartino says what economists have too long that economists do great harm even as they aspire to do good. Economist-induced harm, DeMartino shows, results in part from economists’ “irreparable ignorance”—from the fact that they know far less than they tend to believe they know—and from disciplinary training that treats the human tolls of economic policies and interventions as simply the costs of promoting social betterment. DeMartino details the complicated nature of economic harm, explores economists’ frequent failure to recognize it, and makes a sobering case for professional humility and for genuine respect for those who stand to be harmed by economists’ practice.
At a moment in history when the economics profession holds enormous power, DeMartino’s work demonstrates the downside of its influence and the responsibility facing those who practice the tragic science.
The practice of economics, as economists will tell you, is a powerful force for good. Economists are the guardians of the world’s economies and financial systems. The applications of economic theory can alleviate poverty, reduce disease, and promote sustainability.
While this narrative has been successfully propagated by economists, it belies a more challenging economic interventions, including those economists deem successful, also cause harm. Sometimes the harm is manageable and short-lived. But just as often the harm is deep, enduring, and even irreparable. And too often the harm falls on those least able to survive it.
In The Tragic Science , George F. DeMartino says what economists have too long that economists do great harm even as they aspire to do good. Economist-induced harm, DeMartino shows, results in part from economists’ “irreparable ignorance”—from the fact that they know far less than they tend to believe they know—and from disciplinary training that treats the human tolls of economic policies and interventions as simply the costs of promoting social betterment. DeMartino details the complicated nature of economic harm, explores economists’ frequent failure to recognize it, and makes a sobering case for professional humility and for genuine respect for those who stand to be harmed by economists’ practice.
At a moment in history when the economics profession holds enormous power, DeMartino’s work demonstrates the downside of its influence and the responsibility facing those who practice the tragic science.
- GenresEconomicsNonfiction
272 pages, Hardcover
Published July 26, 2022
8 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 22, 2023
The title here, a riff on the classic 'dismal science' moniker for economics, sets up not only the main theme of the book, but prepares the reader for an indictment of the discipline as a whole. The book is divided into 4 sections (The tragic science, the origins of econogenic harm, economic moral geometry, and confronting econogenic harm responsibly), each comprising of three chapters; these sections, and indeed, some of the chapters, can be read as stand-alones, but that will take away from the overall punch of this fantastic slim volume.
There exists a vast array of books critiquing neoclassical economics, for being unrealistic, for serving capital rather than labor, for conflicts of interest, for their wannabe scientific pretensions, etc. The Tragic Science, however, differs in several fundamental aspects. While DeMartino does take more than a few shots at neoclassical economics here, the aim of the book is to demonstrate how economic policy advice, aimed squarely at 'social betterment', often (if not always) induces harm as well as well as good, and that harm has never really been seriously taken into account by the discipline.
For the last 100 years, economists have aimed for a seat at the table regarding public policy decisions and they have been wildly successful-- no other discipline has, for example, the POTUS' ear via something like the Council of Economic Advisors. Economists give advice via the IMF, the World Bank, and other international institutions, all aimed to a degree to make the world a better place. Tragically, however, many of these efforts have induced great harm that is typically ignored altogether. One anecdote in the book concerns the 'shock therapy' inflicted upon the former USSR in the 1990s, which radically disrupted these economies and led to 10 million deaths among the population from despair, dislocation, among other things. Why was shock therapy advocated? The 'benefits' were seen as greater than the 'costs'. I cannot help but think of Madeleine Albright's "Yet, it was worth it" quip when asked about the millions of Iraqis who died under the economic embargo in the 1990s. Just about the same logic applies with economic policy, but what makes it 'worth it'?
To address the 'worth it' question, you need to explore 'costs' and 'benefits' are calculated and indeed, the entire (what DeMartino calls) 'Economic Moral Geometry' behind such policy advice. This is probably the strongest part of the book and DeMartino quietly but forcefully demonstrates that far from being a 'positive' science, economics is loaded with ethics, especially when it comes to advocating policy. After all, what else would be behind policy advice if not a desire to achieve a 'better' economic outcome? The rub is what does 'better' actually mean to those economists dispensing such advice.
I am not going to go into all the details here (read the book!) but the ethical commitments of neoclassical economics revolve around the idea of 'social welfare', and policies are advocated which improve social welfare. Ideally, if a policy changes the status quo where some people are 'better off' and none 'worse off', it is a win-win. Unfortunately, almost every change makes some people better off and some worse. So, how can an economist advocate one policy or another? This is where moral geometry comes in. A policy is deems 'good' if the 'winners' benefit so much that they can compensate the 'losers' and still have some left over, as overall social welfare will have risen. Crucially, there is no mandate that such compensation needs to occur. Going further down the rabbit hole here, DeMartino investigates how exactly are benefits/loses calculated? This is by far the clearest presentation of such an analysis that I have ever read. The conclusion: economic moral geometry is ethically bankrupt by just about any standard of ethics you consider.
The first three quarters of the book elaborate the paternalistic role economic advice takes (something also morally indictable) in prescribing the 'medicine' to make the world better, which involved applying the economic moral geometry he also indicts. DeMartino throws down the ethical gauntlet here; not in an 'in your face' way, but thoughtfully, building the case brick by brick, line by line. Any economist with any desire for a public policy role really needs to read and think about this book!
The last quarter of the book discusses some alternatives to mainstream moral geometry, primarily as a first step toward deep reflection and humility for the discipline as a whole. First, we need a much better account of what econogenic harms actually are, what he calls a 'harm profile analysis'. Some harms may be easy to fix, but some, no; harms cannot simply be reduced to some dollar matrix. Secondly, given that all policy advice is made under conditions of 'deep uncertainty', how might proposed changes incorporate the stakeholders involved so as to mitigate harms? The book ends with the chapter "From Reckless to Responsible Economics" which briefly outlines a way forward; hopeful to be sure, but only if the discipline takes DeMartino's critique seriously.
It should!
So, who might be interested in this book? Economists and social scientists of all stripes for sure, but DeMartino worked very hard to make this accessible to a 'layperson' as well. If you have any interest in the ethics behind economic policy, how exactly cost/benefit analysis works, and, perhaps most importantly, the harms that economic policy advise induces, this is the book for you. Nothing else like it out there and it comes as a breath of fresh air for a moribund, ethically indictable discipline that has helped reshape the world, and not always for the better.
5 super stars!!
There exists a vast array of books critiquing neoclassical economics, for being unrealistic, for serving capital rather than labor, for conflicts of interest, for their wannabe scientific pretensions, etc. The Tragic Science, however, differs in several fundamental aspects. While DeMartino does take more than a few shots at neoclassical economics here, the aim of the book is to demonstrate how economic policy advice, aimed squarely at 'social betterment', often (if not always) induces harm as well as well as good, and that harm has never really been seriously taken into account by the discipline.
For the last 100 years, economists have aimed for a seat at the table regarding public policy decisions and they have been wildly successful-- no other discipline has, for example, the POTUS' ear via something like the Council of Economic Advisors. Economists give advice via the IMF, the World Bank, and other international institutions, all aimed to a degree to make the world a better place. Tragically, however, many of these efforts have induced great harm that is typically ignored altogether. One anecdote in the book concerns the 'shock therapy' inflicted upon the former USSR in the 1990s, which radically disrupted these economies and led to 10 million deaths among the population from despair, dislocation, among other things. Why was shock therapy advocated? The 'benefits' were seen as greater than the 'costs'. I cannot help but think of Madeleine Albright's "Yet, it was worth it" quip when asked about the millions of Iraqis who died under the economic embargo in the 1990s. Just about the same logic applies with economic policy, but what makes it 'worth it'?
To address the 'worth it' question, you need to explore 'costs' and 'benefits' are calculated and indeed, the entire (what DeMartino calls) 'Economic Moral Geometry' behind such policy advice. This is probably the strongest part of the book and DeMartino quietly but forcefully demonstrates that far from being a 'positive' science, economics is loaded with ethics, especially when it comes to advocating policy. After all, what else would be behind policy advice if not a desire to achieve a 'better' economic outcome? The rub is what does 'better' actually mean to those economists dispensing such advice.
I am not going to go into all the details here (read the book!) but the ethical commitments of neoclassical economics revolve around the idea of 'social welfare', and policies are advocated which improve social welfare. Ideally, if a policy changes the status quo where some people are 'better off' and none 'worse off', it is a win-win. Unfortunately, almost every change makes some people better off and some worse. So, how can an economist advocate one policy or another? This is where moral geometry comes in. A policy is deems 'good' if the 'winners' benefit so much that they can compensate the 'losers' and still have some left over, as overall social welfare will have risen. Crucially, there is no mandate that such compensation needs to occur. Going further down the rabbit hole here, DeMartino investigates how exactly are benefits/loses calculated? This is by far the clearest presentation of such an analysis that I have ever read. The conclusion: economic moral geometry is ethically bankrupt by just about any standard of ethics you consider.
The first three quarters of the book elaborate the paternalistic role economic advice takes (something also morally indictable) in prescribing the 'medicine' to make the world better, which involved applying the economic moral geometry he also indicts. DeMartino throws down the ethical gauntlet here; not in an 'in your face' way, but thoughtfully, building the case brick by brick, line by line. Any economist with any desire for a public policy role really needs to read and think about this book!
The last quarter of the book discusses some alternatives to mainstream moral geometry, primarily as a first step toward deep reflection and humility for the discipline as a whole. First, we need a much better account of what econogenic harms actually are, what he calls a 'harm profile analysis'. Some harms may be easy to fix, but some, no; harms cannot simply be reduced to some dollar matrix. Secondly, given that all policy advice is made under conditions of 'deep uncertainty', how might proposed changes incorporate the stakeholders involved so as to mitigate harms? The book ends with the chapter "From Reckless to Responsible Economics" which briefly outlines a way forward; hopeful to be sure, but only if the discipline takes DeMartino's critique seriously.
It should!
So, who might be interested in this book? Economists and social scientists of all stripes for sure, but DeMartino worked very hard to make this accessible to a 'layperson' as well. If you have any interest in the ethics behind economic policy, how exactly cost/benefit analysis works, and, perhaps most importantly, the harms that economic policy advise induces, this is the book for you. Nothing else like it out there and it comes as a breath of fresh air for a moribund, ethically indictable discipline that has helped reshape the world, and not always for the better.
5 super stars!!
October 26, 2023
This work was incredibly eye-opening for me. I’m an environmental scientist with a fascination of social systems and justice. This book does well to lay out the author’s arguments: the history of modern economic views, case studies, current issues, and suggestions for the future of economics and decision-making. DeMartino balances harsh criticism with constructive optimism.
Due to the abundance of information and my very general knowledge of economics (one class in college), the book took some time to read and digest. Though I’m no expert, this book gives a thorough overview and many thoughtful insights. Any interested reader will be able to understand the general arguments and information presented, which the author aspires for accessibility. I know there are a lot of points I found interesting and talked about with friends and family after reading.
Due to the abundance of information and my very general knowledge of economics (one class in college), the book took some time to read and digest. Though I’m no expert, this book gives a thorough overview and many thoughtful insights. Any interested reader will be able to understand the general arguments and information presented, which the author aspires for accessibility. I know there are a lot of points I found interesting and talked about with friends and family after reading.
October 16, 2022
In-fighting with the parasitic class. Zero intellectual value. The argument is about who should have the higher wages from the taxes collected from the working people.
November 29, 2024
GUYS I DID IT I FINISHED THIS BOOK after literal MONTHS of reading this i can finally say with a great deal of relief that i have actually finished this book
honestly. so many thoughts. part one and two were great and then came part three which like totally threw me off my rhythm and took forever to get through. what was his argument here? honestly, it’s hard to say. i feel like the book could have been half of what it was but it was really insightful and informative and i have a long list of subsequent reading to do. this is the kind of book i wish i had read in an econ class in college or as part of a bookclub of local econ nerds who like to read. anyways if u read it lmk i’d love to discuss in five months when you finally finish it lol
honestly. so many thoughts. part one and two were great and then came part three which like totally threw me off my rhythm and took forever to get through. what was his argument here? honestly, it’s hard to say. i feel like the book could have been half of what it was but it was really insightful and informative and i have a long list of subsequent reading to do. this is the kind of book i wish i had read in an econ class in college or as part of a bookclub of local econ nerds who like to read. anyways if u read it lmk i’d love to discuss in five months when you finally finish it lol
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews