VSWhat policy makers are often looking for are new ideas, which are rarely radical, and more practical information about how to do better at what they set out to do. It was in my inaugural lesson in 2009 [Esther Duflo était alors titulaire de la chaire Savoirs contre pauvreté] which I introduced for the first time a metaphor I found very useful (so much so that I made it the title of an important lecture I gave before the American Economic Association in 2017) from an economist as a plumber.

I then wrote: “So it is useful to think of economists not as pure scientists, but as skilled technicians, engineers or even plumbers. In a number of fields, economists have expertise and models that can serve as a guide for proposing responses to particular problems or for analyzing and theoretically evaluating solutions proposed by actors in the field. »

But it turns out that economic policy issues are often multifaceted: big ideas, structural reforms, may be of more interest to politicians, as well as many of their advisers (including economists), but when it comes to implementing policies on the ground, questions and practical details multiply. double, and it’s these details that can make the difference between success and failure. Broad guidelines are often provided by a clear ideological or political framework (sometimes provided by economist types who are more “scientific” than plumbers). Procedures, broadly, by engineers or bureaucrats. But details are too often overlooked, firstly because the tendency to overlook every (even potentially important) detail is so human, and secondly because economists and politicians are especially prone to this fallacy.

Economists’ training instructs them generally, precisely, to ignore the details. The art of modeling is to simplify reality to discover the internal logic of essential assumptions. The light is directed to illuminate general principles, not details that may be very specific to a particular situation. This detail is a nuisance. In order to concentrate better on general principles, the economist-scientist will ignore these troubling details, which might just make the difference between success and failure. This explains why the confidence level of economists is always low.

You have 76.41% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.