Home > The Economics Profession > Republican economics

Republican economics

from David Ruccio

The more you study economics the more likely you are to be Republican and to hold free-market views.

That’s the less-than-surprising conclusion of a recent study by the New York Fed. Here are some of the authors’ observations:

Those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. 

We find a statistically significant relationship between the number of economics courses completed, or majoring in economics, and the likelihood that a person agreed or generally agreed with [an economic policy] statement.

Those taking more economics classes favored less regulation or government intervention affecting prices for specific goods and services, including wages and salaries.

On most of the items, graduates who took more economics courses, or majored in economics, gave responses that were more similar to responses by the national sample of Ph.D. economists.

Actually, on some statements (such as “A large federal budget deficit has an adverse effect on the economy” and “The level of government relative to national income [GDP] spending should be reduced”), students who had taken more courses in economics held more doctrinaire views than economists.

The question is, what explains the results? The authors remain agnostic in the face of the chicken-and-egg problem: it’s possible that students’ views become more Republican/conservative as a result of taking economics courses or that students taking economics courses are already more Republican/conservative.

I’ll offer two explanations: First, economists tend, more than all other social scientists and humanities professors, to vote Republican. That’s according to every survey I’ve seen (such as “The Social and Political Views of American Professors” [pdf] by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons). Second, the economics taught to students tends to be neoclassical economics. That’s the hegemonic approach—the  basis of many economics curricula and certainly the leading textbooks—in U.S. academic economics. The lessons students get, in the basic theory as well as the examples and applications, favor free-market solutions over all others. In fact, many economics students are never even exposed to alternative theories and other forms of economic organization.

So, students of economics—whether by influence or self-selection—are more exposed to Republican politics and free-market, neoclassical views and approaches than they get in other academic disciplines. That’s why the conclusions of the study are not all all surprising.

And that’s exactly the set of Republican political views and neoclassical economic perspectives they’re going to get at the University of Notre Dame, now that they’ve dissolved the Department of Economics and Policy Studies

  1. June 11, 2010 at 6:57 am

    I am a late student of economics having come to it via a career as a CEO in the real world, who had started to recognise that the growth focussed measurements by which I and my fellow CEO’s were being held to account for no longer made sense. This finding by the FED is not surprising. It is depressing, but I do think that we are approaching a kind of tipping point and things are about to change, despite decisions like the one to dissolve the department at Notre Dame.

  2. Ken MacIntyre
    June 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    THis quote vindicates the analysis

    Mainstream economic theory in effect operates as a system of rules, procedures and assumptions that justifies elite appropriation and manipulation of the material, social and intellectual resources of society through the institutions of the formal economy: property finance and markets.

    Frances Hutchinson, Mary Mellor and Wendy Olsen, The Politics of Money: towards sustainability and economic democracy, 2002

  3. shock therapy
    June 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    There should be an easy way to tell the difference between self-selection and influence: ask the same questions before and after economics courses, or to two different cohorts, one at the beginning the other at the end of the studies. Has someone done it already?

    In any case, what is worse? My fear is that if you say it is influence, knowing mainstream economists they would reply that people in economics are not ideologically influenced; rather, they acquire the knowledge of how well markets work/can work, knowledge that others (e.g. scientists) simply do not have. I think this does not make sense, but this is what they would say, I guess. In essence, this argument implies that if you are well informed, you are Repubblican ( is it not really what is in the mind of most economics professors nowdays?).

  4. David Ruccio
    June 13, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    A good quote, Ken.

    According to the authors’ analysis, some students may be drawn to such a worldview while other students may learn it as “the way the world is” in their neoclassical economics courses.

  5. Oscar
    June 16, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Prof. Ruccio- I remember my freshman year (2004) one of the school’s publications did a survey of the political affiliation of students that was shocking to me at the time. It clearly showed that as freshman we all walked in with Republican hats on but as we progressed through our studies we all graduated with Democratic hats on. The joke was- the smarter you get the faster you leave the Republican party.

    I was fortunate to take two of your courses that exposed me the world beyond neoclassical economics. If I could reduce all that I learned in a few words; mainstream economics lacks the human element that is so rich in other schools of thought. L in production functions isn’t simply a variable but rather a person that through their own will, by necessity or otherwise, works to produce not just for their benefit but for that of others. The political climate is telling that the Republican party is more interested in the variable and not the underlined meaning. With great confidence they point to “economists” that have all the answers in the form of numbers and statistics and yet only footnote who they are really talking about. Perhaps a greater move toward behavioral economics will put things in perspective.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.