The Dangerous Ideological Bias of Economists: An Empirical Study and Its Disciplinary Rejection

This podcast episode delves into a study challenging the self-perception of economics as an objective, non-ideological science, often characterized by a positivist methodology. The research, conducted by Mohsen Jeff Donnie and colleagues, employed a randomized controlled trial involving economists from 19 countries. Participants evaluated statements attributed to either mainstream or less/non-mainstream sources, or no source at all, to discern the presence of ideological and authority bias. The core argument is that despite claims of objectivity, economists' evaluations are significantly influenced by the source of information, rather than solely its content.

The study yielded several key findings. It demonstrated a significant drop in agreement levels with statements when their attribution shifted from mainstream to less/non-mainstream sources, indicating a clear ideological bias. Interestingly, while 82% of economists reported that arguments should be evaluated based on content only, their actual behavior suggested an unconscious influence from source attribution. The research also uncovered a gender dimension, with women exhibiting 44% less bias than men and a significant divide in understanding gender-related problems within the discipline. Furthermore, political orientation played a role, with economists identifying as far-right showing a substantially larger bias effect (around 700% increase) compared to those on the far-left, despite the former group also claiming content-only evaluation.

The podcast explores the potential roots of this ideological bias, suggesting it is knowledge-based and shaped by dominant institutions within economics. Two primary mechanisms are highlighted: economic education and social structures. Economic education, particularly in graduate programs, often prioritizes technical expertise over a deep understanding of the economy, history of economic thought, or methodology, which can lead students to rely more easily on ideology. Moreover, there's evidence that economics students are more prone to attitudes associated with greed and selfishness. Social structures and norms within the discipline, characterized by centralization of power and incentives for groupthink, further hinder intellectual pluralism and propagate biased research parameters.

Broader implications of these findings are significant, pointing to a troubling resistance to self-critique within the economics profession. The researchers faced hostile reactions, including threatening emails and repeated desk rejections from prominent journals, often with rationales like "we do not publish papers about our own profession" or demands to address the entire issue of bias origins and consequences in a single paper. This resistance underscores the very biases the study investigates, highlighting a systemic issue where the discipline struggles to acknowledge and address its own ideological underpinnings, potentially impacting the quality and objectivity of economic research and policy recommendations. The heterogeneity of bias across different groups, however, suggests that these biases are not immutable and can be addressed through targeted interventions in education and institutional reform.

positive economics is all it can be an objective science in precisely the same sense as any of the physical sciences

we do not publish papers about own profession

when we change the sources from manage to them to less or non mainstream sources whether the level of agreement with these statements change and what we find is that indeed when sources are changed from Magnusson to less or non menacing the agreement level with these statements drops significantly among economists

a strong majority of economists actually 82% of them report that statements and arguments should be evaluated on the basis of the content only but others also basically suggest the exact opposite that does strongly influenced by the views and ideologies of the sources that we buted to these statements which potentially suggest that part of the ideological bias we find in our results is functions - unconscious modes

women are less bias than men in fact our estimate and treatment effect when we change sources is 44 percent smaller for women than for men

there is a very significant divide between male and female economists in the understanding of the gendered problem in economics

for women when it comes to the issue of gender problems and gender discrimination in the discipline they basically put aside ideology because this is something they have personally experienced and focus more on the content of the statement

for those who self-identify as the far left the effect is very small... but as we move to the fall light this reduction agreement level when we change sources becomes a very large in fact it increases by I think around 700 percent when we go from the far left to the far light

the main source of ideological bias seems to be knowledge-based it seems to be influenced by institutions that produce discourse

the lack of depth in knowledge acquired not only in economics and among economics students but among any group of individuals makes people to lean more easily on ideology

economics stands out in certain respects when it comes to these social sorts and norms in ways that results in centralization of power and in creation of incentive mechanisms for leases that further hinder polarity and encourage group thinking and delineates biased research parameters

we received I guess very hostile reactions ranging from threatening emails to very unprofessional hostile reactions in confidence as well