Read on Twitter
This is a subject dearly close to my heart: communicating economics to non-economists.
Almost my entire career has been about this, through policy notes, teaching, speeches, presentations, emails, discussions over coffee and so on.
So, a thread: https://twitter.com/etjernst/status/1291197869173534721
Almost my entire career has been about this, through policy notes, teaching, speeches, presentations, emails, discussions over coffee and so on.
So, a thread: https://twitter.com/etjernst/status/1291197869173534721
Economics is mainly simple.
I'm not being flippant. Broken down into its constituent parts almost all economic theories are simple. They may be counterintuitive, and they may be built up into complex arguments, but at root you can explain most economic ideas simply.
I'm not being flippant. Broken down into its constituent parts almost all economic theories are simple. They may be counterintuitive, and they may be built up into complex arguments, but at root you can explain most economic ideas simply.
This is - obviously - not a criticism! It's why econ is so powerful and such a great discipline.
Never lose sight of this. Your intention in communicating to non-economists is always: "what is the simplest way I can explain this idea that remains true to its core?"
Never lose sight of this. Your intention in communicating to non-economists is always: "what is the simplest way I can explain this idea that remains true to its core?"
Why do I say this?
Because in communicating with non-economists, we are typically most interested in helping them understand the *intuition* and the *implications* of a theory/idea/econ policy.
Mostly, these can be expressed in simple terms.
Because in communicating with non-economists, we are typically most interested in helping them understand the *intuition* and the *implications* of a theory/idea/econ policy.
Mostly, these can be expressed in simple terms.
(this is relevant re: mathiness in econ. Maths can help people be precise but is not the only path to precision. It's also much worse for explaining either intuition or implications to people who don't think in maths. i.e. almost every policymaker alive). https://twitter.com/Undercoverhist/status/1103672632652775429
So how to help non-econs understand economics better? First, choose the right medium. Your Ecta paper is not the right vehicle. The hoops you have to jump through for publication are not conducive for clarity (some manage it. most can't).
A mistake many economists make in writing for non-economists is worrying that another econ is watching, and spending too much time 'showing their working', doing things to satisfy them. Impress economists with your research. Don't worry about them when they're not the target.
Many of the most influential economists I know spend a lot of time talking to policymakers, people in different fields and students. Many don't have doctorates (Dave Ramsden, ex-Chief Economist in the UK Treasury and by all accounts a seriously sharp mind, doesn't).
Secondly, seriously invest in a repertoire of stories, metaphors, pop culture references: anything that other people can easily bring to mind and that provides a structure or a mirror to the idea you're explaining. I've used music, animals, The Wire, cooking...
This serves two purposes. First, it makes your speech/lesson/article more fun and engaging, and helps people remember things. And secondly, you're taking advantage of their existing mental models and using them as a shortcut to comprehension of the new idea.
Thirdly, explain why it matters. Maybe it means that the policy they thought would work won't; maybe it gives a behaviour they previously found inexplicable new meaning.
But without an angle that helps them understand implications, they will be unlikely to retain or act on it.
But without an angle that helps them understand implications, they will be unlikely to retain or act on it.
This is quite hard, especially for an academic who is trained to define their 'motivation' in terms of a literature or to try to limit what they say to what they can directly prove with their research. But most important findings have lives beyond the context of the paper.
Lastly, a few examples of good practice. First, Tim Harford - both in his books and in his blogs.
He does all of these things masterfully.
@TimHarford, https://timharford.com/
He does all of these things masterfully.
@TimHarford, https://timharford.com/
Second, Emily Oster ( @ProfEmilyOster). It's hard to think of a book that takes an economist's worldview and makes it relevant, engaging and empowering to as many diverse people as Expecting Better. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/310896/expecting-better-by-emily-oster/
Third, more technical but still doing all the things I suggested is this brilliant speech by Andrew Haldane about the financial crisis. The first lines are glorious: "Elephant Seals have gotten too big for their beaches."
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2012/financial-arms-races.pdf?la=en&hash=9DDBB976083677B75CBC04771A53FDFC4C7EA184
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2012/financial-arms-races.pdf?la=en&hash=9DDBB976083677B75CBC04771A53FDFC4C7EA184
