What do you think?
Rate this book
The Secret Sins of Economics
Deirdre McCloskey's work in economics always calls into question its reputation as "the dismal science." She writes with passion and an unusually wide scope, drawing on literature and intellectual history in exciting, if unorthodox, ways. In this pamphlet, McCloskey reveals what she sees as the secret sins of economics that no one will discuss—two sins that "cripple" economics as a "scientific enterprise."
- GenresEconomics
62 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
About the author
Deirdre Nansen McCloskey
62 books319 followersDeirdre Nansen McCloskey has been distinguished professor of economics and history and professor of English and communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is the author of numerous books, including Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 11, 2021
I was doing an economics degree and dying of boredom. And then I found McCloskey.
Maybe the best introduction to the field. Though for leftist friends you’ll want Filthy Lucre instead, and work up to McCloskey’s hilarious shtick (“Workingmen of all countries unite! Demand capitalism!”)
Maybe the best introduction to the field. Though for leftist friends you’ll want Filthy Lucre instead, and work up to McCloskey’s hilarious shtick (“Workingmen of all countries unite! Demand capitalism!”)
September 25, 2022
Economist Deirdre McCloskey writes a short (60 pages) and compelling essay on the field of economics. Here I will make it even shorter:
Virtues which are misidentified as sins: quantifying human behaviour, using mathematical reasoning, espousing libertarian politics
Venial sins: assuming that humans are fully rational agents
Mortal sins which are not specific to economics: ignorance of real-world institutions, ignorance of other disciplines, candid selfishness, personal arrogance
The secret sins of economics: qualitative theorems, misuse of significance testing
An interesting argument, although it was published in 2002 so with any luck the rest of the field has taken note of which criticisms are valid & important and at least made the attempt to address them. Ha ha ha.
December 18, 2017
Should be read by anyone interested in diving into economic theory. Although she fluffs everything full of her own questionable side opinions, she seems know her stuff. She definitely is on the mark about economic theory and cult of statistical significance. I look forward to reading more of her, as there is a great deal left out of this work, such as what theory in economics/social science could really look like beyond existence theorems.
June 9, 2026
Not Sins
Quantification
Quantification is not a sin. Many aspects of society can only be understood through arithmetic, statistics, and measurement. The extensive use of numbers in economics is necessary because economic life is fundamentally concerned with quantities: prices, wages, growth, unemployment, trade, and production. Numbers provide a language through which we can describe and understand the world. The problem is not quantification itself, but the belief that quantification alone is sufficient.
Mathematics
Mathematics is likewise not a sin. Statistics and quantitative methods answer questions of how much through inductive reasoning, whereas mathematics answers questions of why and whether through deduction. Mathematical reasoning allows economists to derive implications from assumptions with logical precision and to analyze complex relationships that would otherwise remain obscure. The danger lies not in mathematics but in mistaking mathematical elegance for empirical truth.
Venial Sins (Easily Forgiven)
Excessive Prudence
Economists often assume that people are prudent and rational, seeking to optimize their decisions according to their interests. As an analytical starting point, this assumption is useful because it helps explain why individuals act as they do. However, human beings are motivated by more than prudence alone. Religion, culture, morality, habit, loyalty, and ideology all shape economic behavior. Because prudence is often an important part of human action, overemphasizing it is a forgivable error, provided one remembers that it is only part of the story.
Numerous Weighty Sins Requiring Special Grace to Forgive
Institutional Ignorance
Economists frequently know little about the institutions that constitute the economy itself. Markets, firms, governments, legal systems, and social organizations are often treated as abstract mechanisms rather than historically developed institutions with their own complexities.
Historical Ignorance
Many economists know surprisingly little about the history of their discipline. They may never seriously engage with the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, or other foundational thinkers. This is akin to a biologist never reading Darwin. As a result, economists often repeat old debates without recognizing them.
Cultural Barbarism
Economists are often narrowly educated. Their intellectual world can be confined to economics and statistics, with little engagement in history, philosophy, literature, anthropology, or other fields that illuminate human behavior. Their understanding of society may therefore rest on surprisingly thin cultural foundations.
The Rejection of Normative Inquiry
Economists often insist that science must be purely positive rather than normative. Questions concerning what ought to be are dismissed as philosophical and therefore supposedly unscientific. Yet economic inquiry inevitably raises moral and political questions that cannot simply be ignored.
Arrogance in Social Engineering
There is a tendency among some economists to believe that their methods provide superior knowledge of society and that alternative forms of understanding can be safely disregarded. This confidence can lead to overly ambitious schemes of social engineering and an underestimation of the complexity of social life.
Candid Selfishness
Economic actors are frequently portrayed as straightforwardly selfish, pursuing their own interests honestly and consistently. While self-interest is undoubtedly important, reducing human motivation to selfishness alone neglects the roles of duty, generosity, loyalty, and moral commitment.
Personal Arrogance
Economists can display a kind of intellectual arrogance similar to that found among engineers. Engineers often rely on simplified models because such models successfully solve practical problems. Some economists assume that a similarly simplified approach can explain the entirety of social life, overlooking dimensions of human existence that cannot be reduced to mathematical models.
The Two Real Sins (Almost Peculiar to Economics)
The Sin of Theorizing Without Looking
Economists often construct elegant theories and models without adequately investigating how the real world actually works. They become absorbed in abstract reasoning while neglecting observation, history, institutions, and empirical inquiry. Good science requires both thinking and looking; economics too often privileges the former at the expense of the latter.
The Sin of Confusing Statistical Significance with Importance
Economists frequently mistake statistical significance for substantive significance. A result may be statistically significant while having little practical or economic importance. By focusing on p-values and technical significance tests, economists can lose sight of the more important question: does the observed effect matter in the real world? Statistical significance is not the same as scientific, economic, or human significance.
Quantification
Quantification is not a sin. Many aspects of society can only be understood through arithmetic, statistics, and measurement. The extensive use of numbers in economics is necessary because economic life is fundamentally concerned with quantities: prices, wages, growth, unemployment, trade, and production. Numbers provide a language through which we can describe and understand the world. The problem is not quantification itself, but the belief that quantification alone is sufficient.
Mathematics
Mathematics is likewise not a sin. Statistics and quantitative methods answer questions of how much through inductive reasoning, whereas mathematics answers questions of why and whether through deduction. Mathematical reasoning allows economists to derive implications from assumptions with logical precision and to analyze complex relationships that would otherwise remain obscure. The danger lies not in mathematics but in mistaking mathematical elegance for empirical truth.
Venial Sins (Easily Forgiven)
Excessive Prudence
Economists often assume that people are prudent and rational, seeking to optimize their decisions according to their interests. As an analytical starting point, this assumption is useful because it helps explain why individuals act as they do. However, human beings are motivated by more than prudence alone. Religion, culture, morality, habit, loyalty, and ideology all shape economic behavior. Because prudence is often an important part of human action, overemphasizing it is a forgivable error, provided one remembers that it is only part of the story.
Numerous Weighty Sins Requiring Special Grace to Forgive
Institutional Ignorance
Economists frequently know little about the institutions that constitute the economy itself. Markets, firms, governments, legal systems, and social organizations are often treated as abstract mechanisms rather than historically developed institutions with their own complexities.
Historical Ignorance
Many economists know surprisingly little about the history of their discipline. They may never seriously engage with the works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, or other foundational thinkers. This is akin to a biologist never reading Darwin. As a result, economists often repeat old debates without recognizing them.
Cultural Barbarism
Economists are often narrowly educated. Their intellectual world can be confined to economics and statistics, with little engagement in history, philosophy, literature, anthropology, or other fields that illuminate human behavior. Their understanding of society may therefore rest on surprisingly thin cultural foundations.
The Rejection of Normative Inquiry
Economists often insist that science must be purely positive rather than normative. Questions concerning what ought to be are dismissed as philosophical and therefore supposedly unscientific. Yet economic inquiry inevitably raises moral and political questions that cannot simply be ignored.
Arrogance in Social Engineering
There is a tendency among some economists to believe that their methods provide superior knowledge of society and that alternative forms of understanding can be safely disregarded. This confidence can lead to overly ambitious schemes of social engineering and an underestimation of the complexity of social life.
Candid Selfishness
Economic actors are frequently portrayed as straightforwardly selfish, pursuing their own interests honestly and consistently. While self-interest is undoubtedly important, reducing human motivation to selfishness alone neglects the roles of duty, generosity, loyalty, and moral commitment.
Personal Arrogance
Economists can display a kind of intellectual arrogance similar to that found among engineers. Engineers often rely on simplified models because such models successfully solve practical problems. Some economists assume that a similarly simplified approach can explain the entirety of social life, overlooking dimensions of human existence that cannot be reduced to mathematical models.
The Two Real Sins (Almost Peculiar to Economics)
The Sin of Theorizing Without Looking
Economists often construct elegant theories and models without adequately investigating how the real world actually works. They become absorbed in abstract reasoning while neglecting observation, history, institutions, and empirical inquiry. Good science requires both thinking and looking; economics too often privileges the former at the expense of the latter.
The Sin of Confusing Statistical Significance with Importance
Economists frequently mistake statistical significance for substantive significance. A result may be statistically significant while having little practical or economic importance. By focusing on p-values and technical significance tests, economists can lose sight of the more important question: does the observed effect matter in the real world? Statistical significance is not the same as scientific, economic, or human significance.
January 12, 2022
This book is actually more like an essay. It's less than 60 pages and yet, even at this length, it still feels unnecessarily long. I'm still going through Professor McCloskey's book "Why Liberalism Works," (which, by the way, is a very misleading title) but given that that book is newer and more up to date, I think it really diminishes the possible value of this book. The first half of this essay is dedicated to defending economics against some unfair accusations or justify some more valid criticisms by essentially saying, "well, everyone else does it too." McCloskey's main critiques of economics are articulated in her peculiar, nonchalant, verbose and poetic way by essentially creating categories of questions that we can strive to ask. A person may as a Why/Whether question or a How Much question. McCloskey would like to see a lot more of the How Much question being asked in a serious way by economists. She essentially wants them to stop acting like mathematicians making proofs based on theorems and models and get more into the data of things and have them try to act more like the sciences, like physics, that they envy. But even those who get into the data upset her because she is also very critical of the use of statistical significance. She doesn't really present an alternative here, she just says that all sciences that use statistical significance could stand to benefit from not using that as a standard as what matters and what doesn't. She encourages economists to engage more deeply with the history of their own subject and with fields outside of their own, like philosophy.
She has many positive things to say about the field of physics which is interesting to read because there are many similar arguments that go on inside the field today, at least if you believe talks and books aimed at a popular audience (which i think is typically a silly thing to do). It is nice to read praise on the subject I hope to become an expert in, especially from an academic I have great respect for. McCloskey has this weird quality where I feel like I'm disagreeing with or not being convinced by a lot of what she says, and then later find myself believing things that I didn't before that she stated at some point. She writes a lot about rhetoric, which has encouraged me to enroll in a class about the rhetoric of science at my university when the most engagement I had had with rhetoric before was the absolutely terrible book "Thank you for arguing."
McCloskey gives me a similar feeling while I'm reading her that I get from Thomas Sowell. Now with Sowell I disagree a lot more than I do with McCloskey, especially in his essay collections that I occasionally poke through and especially especially on any of his takes about social issues. But despite this fact they both write things that are very compelling to me and make me want to read more and more. Most of the time I spend reading them I feel like I'm getting a lot of the same stuff that I've heard before from them, Deirdre loves to repeat in Why Liberalism Works that the great enrichment occurred because of bourgeois values and has benefited everyone, but every now and then you find beautiful turns of phrase or gold nuggets that typically reward the effort you have to put in to follow the torrent of references she produces. It's a fine book that is probably still topical now for economists, just like the work of J.S. Bell would still be useful for physicists to take more seriously, but there really isn't much of a reason to buy this one, or to read it when her newer work makes many of the same points in a more convincing and memorable way.
She has many positive things to say about the field of physics which is interesting to read because there are many similar arguments that go on inside the field today, at least if you believe talks and books aimed at a popular audience (which i think is typically a silly thing to do). It is nice to read praise on the subject I hope to become an expert in, especially from an academic I have great respect for. McCloskey has this weird quality where I feel like I'm disagreeing with or not being convinced by a lot of what she says, and then later find myself believing things that I didn't before that she stated at some point. She writes a lot about rhetoric, which has encouraged me to enroll in a class about the rhetoric of science at my university when the most engagement I had had with rhetoric before was the absolutely terrible book "Thank you for arguing."
McCloskey gives me a similar feeling while I'm reading her that I get from Thomas Sowell. Now with Sowell I disagree a lot more than I do with McCloskey, especially in his essay collections that I occasionally poke through and especially especially on any of his takes about social issues. But despite this fact they both write things that are very compelling to me and make me want to read more and more. Most of the time I spend reading them I feel like I'm getting a lot of the same stuff that I've heard before from them, Deirdre loves to repeat in Why Liberalism Works that the great enrichment occurred because of bourgeois values and has benefited everyone, but every now and then you find beautiful turns of phrase or gold nuggets that typically reward the effort you have to put in to follow the torrent of references she produces. It's a fine book that is probably still topical now for economists, just like the work of J.S. Bell would still be useful for physicists to take more seriously, but there really isn't much of a reason to buy this one, or to read it when her newer work makes many of the same points in a more convincing and memorable way.
November 12, 2024
The Secret Sins of Economics (2002) by Deidre McCloskey is an entertaining short rant. McCloskey details what she sees as wrong with economics. McCloskey is a professor of economic history.
First McCloskey writes about what are not sins of economics, namely quantifying things and being pro-market. McCloskey also identifies the idea that humans are fully reasonable as a weakness. She also describes how economists are often focused on their own field and are arrogant.
But after the entertaining build up McCloskey identifies what she sees as the two great sins. These are qualitative theorems and an obsession with significance testing that ignores the magnitude of effects.
It’s entertaining and well worth a read. It’s also so nice and short. McCloskey has a pdf copy on her website that is free to download and read.
First McCloskey writes about what are not sins of economics, namely quantifying things and being pro-market. McCloskey also identifies the idea that humans are fully reasonable as a weakness. She also describes how economists are often focused on their own field and are arrogant.
But after the entertaining build up McCloskey identifies what she sees as the two great sins. These are qualitative theorems and an obsession with significance testing that ignores the magnitude of effects.
It’s entertaining and well worth a read. It’s also so nice and short. McCloskey has a pdf copy on her website that is free to download and read.
September 17, 2022
An essay worth reading
October 26, 2020
Statistical significance is neither necessary nor sufficient for a result to be scientifically significant. Most of the time it is irrelevant.
Witty and concise long essay on the forgivable and unforgivable sins of economics. The latter, according to McCloskey, includes the heavy emphasis and reliance on statistical significance and the use of qualitative theorems and measures of statistical significance without quantitative import, or “oomph”, as she puts it.
Witty and concise long essay on the forgivable and unforgivable sins of economics. The latter, according to McCloskey, includes the heavy emphasis and reliance on statistical significance and the use of qualitative theorems and measures of statistical significance without quantitative import, or “oomph”, as she puts it.
September 1, 2013
It's okay... I don't like her writing style though. And she is not legitimately a Chicago School economist.
July 8, 2016
This was a pretty good review of what is wrong with economics as a 'science'. I don't know how influential this book was but many of the arguments are commonplace today.
October 28, 2012
A neat little criticism of the methodologies of modern economics.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews