In this post
I complained about how little attention the visual media gave to the
fact that the overwhelming majority of economists thought that Brexit
would involve significant long term costs. All I have now is more evidence to back up the argument in that post.
First, I was not alone in these thoughts. Here
is Andrew Scott talking about his foreboding concerning the Brexit
debate: “I just really wasn’t looking forward to the debate
because I knew that it would stifle what are the really important
issues, it would become partisan rather than insightful and that the
economic voice and argument was vulnerable to being politically
sidelined.” [1]
Second, the argument that there will be long term costs with Brexit
has not, as yet, convinced most voters. In this poll,
which is not unique, only 22% of voters thought they would be worse
off as a result of Brexit. It seems unlikely that voters are unaware
that David Cameron and George Osborne have claimed they will be worse
off, but quite rightly they may be very distrustful of what politicians say. Virtually no voters will have examined the economic
arguments on both sides and made up their own minds. Crucially,
unless they read one of the broadsheets, they will have no idea that there
is such an overwhelming consensus among economists.
Third, we now have more evidence besides letters that there is indeed
an overwhelming consensus among economists, thanks
to the Observer. True, not quite as overwhelming as I had imagined,
but 9/10 counts as a consensus for economists.
Fourth, there is polling evidence that the public do have a high
level of trust in what academics say. Here is the relevant data
(source):
So to sum up, most people do not think they will be worse off after
Brexit, economists (including academics) overwhelmingly do think
people will be worse off, and people have a high level of trust in
what academics say. I can only think of one plausible explanation
that is consistent with these three facts, and that is that people do
not know what the overwhelming majority of academic economists think.
[2]
In a vote that could well be close, you cannot argue that this
failure to transmit information is unimportant.
One of the structural issues that help produce this problem is what
you could describe as the politicisation of truth which comes from
the overriding need to be unbiased. The visual media rely on either
side to bring the relevant information to the table, because to do
otherwise might seem biased. If a statement is made by one ‘side’
and disputed by the other it is contested, whether it is true
or false. [3] 'Contested' is the word I heard a BBC reporter yesterday describe the
£350 million a week claim, even though the UK Statistics Authority and
one of their own fact check websites say it is false. So if one side does not headline that the overwhelming
majority of economists think Brexit will involve significant long
term costs, this fact - if it is reported at all - can get lost in
the endless and tedious sequence of political claim and counterclaim.
This politicisation of truth did not begin with this referendum. The
Leave campaign chose to headline a figure which they knew to be
wrong. They did so because they also knew it would do them no harm.
They knew it would do them no harm because no one in the media other
than the broadsheets would have the nerve to describe it as a lie. They knew that from observing how the media has worked in the past.
[1] Here
is an example of how the media tries to fit this consensus among
economists into their standard confrontational model. Now I have no
objection to economists being challenged, but it is a shame that all
this interview seemed to be about was Tony Yates trying to get across
the concept of a counterfactual. Just one question along the lines of
why do you think that on this issue economists are so united might
have been interesting for viewers
But I do object strongly to the preamble. All the statements made
were either wrong or beside the point. (1) that the 364 economists
were wrong is the opinion of some but not others - it is not a fact.
(2) the ‘establishment’ may well have thought we should stay in
the ERM in 1992 but did the majority of economists think we would be
worse off coming out? I certainly did not, and published a paper saying so. (3) it was the
evidence
from economists in the 5 tests analysis that convinced Brown to say
no, not the other way around!
So rather than examining why there is such a consensus view among
economists we get a rather poor interview about the value of
counterfactual analysis, and certain opinions passed off as facts
without any opportunity to challenge them. If anyone in the media
asks me why academics appear reluctant to appear on TV, I shall show
them this.
[2] Some people have a kneejerk reaction against complaints involving
the media. In reading Andrew Scott’s piece an analogy occurred to
me which I think might help here. Until the financial crisis, most macroeconomists (not all) tended to view the financial sector as a simple
‘transmission system’ rather than thinking about it as a system
with its own incentives and dynamic. That was a huge mistake. Equally criticisms of the visual media which
amount to ‘they are all biased’ are about as informative as
saying the problem with the financial sector is that everyone in it
is too greedy. More sensible critiques in both cases look at the way the sector works, and the incentives actors with each system face.
[3] Equally if
something is stated often enough by one side and is not contested, it
becomes a fact.
