In retrospect, the writing of this book has proved rather timely. All over the world, populists have been having a field day. And while populism comes in many guises, and is triggered by specific causes in each country, it always plays on the electorate’s frustrations (unemployment, immigration, the slowdown in economic growth) and fears for the future (rising debt, job-destroying technology, climate change). It exploits these frustrations and fears to foster widespread hostility to immigrants, distrust of free trade, and xenophobia.
There is no doubt that citizens want change, and it is easy to understand why. They feel that policymakers are not doing enough and that they do not have a plan. But change for change’s sake is extremely dangerous, particularly when it is based on prejudice and selfishness. Steady, thoughtful change is much less exciting than fast, dramatic change, but it is the only kind of change that can give us hope.
Which brings me to the importance of making economic ideas comprehensible to a general audience. As I have tried to explain in this book, repeatedly blaming politicians for flawed policies won’t get us very far. To be certain, some politicians are more courageous or more competent than others. But like us all, they respond to the incentives they face—in their case, the hope of being (re)elected. Very rarely do they go against majoritarian public opinion. So we, the citizens, get the policies we deserve.
Nowadays, people with expert knowledge are often dismissed. Populist politicians and media in particular show complete contempt for elementary economic mechanisms. They skillfully exploit the cognitive biases emphasized throughout this book: our reliance on first impressions, our dependence on heuristics and narratives, our eagerness to believe what we want to believe and to see what we want to see. They promote a vision of an economy free of difficult choices; the bearers of bad news who dare question these fairytales are presented as scaremongers and austerity or climate change ideologues.
Drawing on their scientific knowledge, economists must continue to explain why certain economic policies are at best useless, and at worst downright harmful. Despite the common claim that economics is not a science and that there is no consensus, economists must respond (with all humility) that there are a number of things they do agree upon—instead of always emphasizing the multiplicity of views that naturally arise when complex social science issues are being discussed.
On March 18, 2017, the French daily Le Monde published a letter signed by twenty-five Nobel laureates in economics. While the signatories to this letter hold a variety of views on complex issues, such as monetary unions and stimulus spending, and represent a wide spectrum of political opinions, all of them felt, after the annus horribilis of 2016 that included Brexit and the result of the American presidential election, that it was their duty to prevent yet another shock, this time in the French presidential election. They felt this all the more strongly because some of the leading candidates (mainly the National Front candidate) had cited Nobel laureates in support of their anti-European economic programs. The letter explained the severe consequences of protectionism, exit from Europe and the Eurozone, and policies inspired by the so-called lump of labor fallacy (the idea that there are a fixed number of jobs in an economy). It noted that migrants, when they are well integrated into the labor force, can constitute an economic opportunity for the host country.
Yes, economics remains an inexact science. Yes, economists’ judgment is sometimes impaired by financial conflicts of interest, political friendships, or ambitions for public recognition. But in my view, and contrary to the current mood, economists can play a more important role now than ever. For this to happen, they need to guide their countries through a period of low growth, prepare them for the digital revolution and its many socioeconomic challenges, and design solutions to unemployment, climate change, financial regulation, monopolies, poverty, and inequality. Economists must anticipate change much more than they currently do. Above all, they must explain what they are good at—and what they are bad at too—and, with humility and conviction, harness economics for the common good.