rhet-o-ric [noun}: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing
Today’s assigned reading was an article in The Economist on Boundary Problems in macroeconomic accounting. It starts with the following sentence: “Economics is a messy discipline: too fluid to be a science, too rigorous to be an art”.
A student noted that he had encountered this type of statement in a number of the course readings and that he could not really make sense of its meaning. I keep noticing the same figure of speech and I often wonder why economists tend to talk this way. I think, ultimately, it’s a rhetorical technique to attribute authority — or, if you prefer, a certain kind of truth — to one’s knowledge claims. But, let’s take one step back for a moment.
The development of modern economics was and continues to be driven by the attempt to establish a scientific method that is superior to the disciplines typically summarized under the header social sciences. I would argue that, to a certain extent, economists succeeded with this project. Over time, the alleged superiority of economics became subject to intellectual critique and, especially during periods of economic turbulence, increased public scrutiny.
Statements like the one above can be a strategy for economists to acknowledge this scrutiny or to try to disarm critics; in most cases it’s probably a combination of both. I encountered this strategy at numerous talks that I attended. Over equally random dinner table conversations, colleagues have told me about similar experiences.
In my understanding the rhetorical move consists of a three-step sequence. First, the humble introduction. Carefully point out all the limitations and caveats to the framework of your presentation and inform your audience that it will raise more questions than it will answer. Second, present your analysis. This usually involves the specification of a model and its equilibrium conditions as well as summarizing empirical estimations. Third, the arrogant conclusion, affirm the validity of your scientific method and your irrefutable policy implications of your results.