The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.

« Examining the Recession’s Effects on Labor Markets | Main | How Big Is the Output Gap? More Perspectives from Our Business Inflation Expectations Survey »

September 27, 2012

Scientists? Engineers? How about Gardeners?

In the past few days Simon Wren-Lewis (at Mainly Macro) and Noah Smith (at Noahpinion) have revisited some past musings by Greg Mankiw on whether we should think of macroeconomists as scientists or engineers. The separation between the two in Mankiw's telling occurs at the point where macroeconomics meets policy—when macroeconomists leave the academic cloister and take up the causes of the real world. In Mankiw's original words:

God put macroeconomists on earth not to propose and test elegant theories but to solve practical problems.

Wren-Lewis and Smith each have their own issues with the scientist/engineer taxonomy, but both seem to more or less buy into the notion of macroeconomist cum policymaker as an engineer.

For my part, I'm not a fan of the engineer metaphor. It seems a little—well, immodest. Consider these comments, to take just a select few, from Federal Reserve officials following the decision of the most recent Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. First, from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (via Econbrowser):

The policies that we have undertaken have had real benefits for the economy in that they have provided some support, that they have eased financial conditions and helped reduce unemployment. All that being said, monetary policy, as I've said many times, is not a panacea, it is not by itself able to solve these problems. We are looking for policymakers in other areas to do their part. We will do our part and we will try to make sure that unemployment moves in the right direction, but we can't solve this problem by ourselves.

And this, from a September 18 speech by Chicago Fed President Charles Evans:

Given the slow and fragile recovery, the large resource gaps that still exist, and the large risks we face, it remains clear that we needed a more resilient economy that can withstand the headwinds that might come its way. Last week the FOMC provided a more accommodative monetary policy that can help us achieve such resilience.

Or this, from a September 21 speech by Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart:

The core rationale of my support [for the FOMC decision] was to better assure that the economy remains on a growth trajectory sufficient to steadily, if gradually, reduce the rate of national joblessness. I am not expecting miracles.

I think the action recently taken by the committee has improved the country's economic prospects by reducing the potential downside apparent in the incoming data. In this sense, the policy action was a preventative. But I expect policy will do more than just prevent backsliding.

To be sure, each of the three express confidence that the FOMC's actions will yield better outcomes than would otherwise occur. I guess you could say “engineer” better outcomes, if you like. But I am struck by some of the other ideas expressed in these comments, related to reducing downside potential, promoting resilience, and providing some support.

I credit my colleague Mike Bryan (who credits former Cleveland Fed President Jerry Jordan, our mutual former boss) for suggesting that these types of motivations are better associated with gardening than engineering science. The good gardener does not presume to create growth, but knows that he or she can play a part by ensuring that growing conditions are the best that they can be. The gardener cannot make the sun shine by applying scientific knowledge, but can take measures to promote resilience and support until it does.

Science and engineering are important, without doubt. But when it comes to policymakers, I'll take a green thumb any day.

David AltigBy Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed

September 27, 2012 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Scientists? Engineers? How about Gardeners? :


I am sorry. But when I think about the economy as a garden, I immediately think of
Peter Sellers as Chance the Gardener ( Chauncey Gardener) in the film of Being There
-- which was released in 1979.

Posted by: malcolm | September 28, 2012 at 02:07 AM

So, Dave, which do you think it is? Has Mankiw actually gone utterly off the deep end via his collaboration with the author of "Dow 36,000" to produce a puff piece for Romney? Or is he just a careerist hoping for a juicy post in a new Administration? Wonder about your view.

As for economists, well, it was Keynes who said he wished economists could be dentists. But I doubt he meant that in the sense of inflicting pain that Bernanke's critics are proposing.

Posted by: Rich888 | September 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM

" past musings by Greg Mankiw on whether we should think of macroeconomists as scientists or engineers"

Try asking a scientist or an engineer. You might get an answer, after they stop laughing. I went to engineering school, and the practices of economists seem entirely unlike what I was taught. And clearly, recent events have shown that one of the key areas in which economics is deficient is in planning for system failure. If engineers were like economists, no one would ever drive across a bridge. (You'd drive up to the bridge and there'd be a sign: 30% chance of bridge failure while crossing, 20% chance of leprechauns with a pot of gold on the other side.)

Posted by: Moopheus | October 02, 2012 at 09:28 AM

There is only two sciences. Math and Physics. Everything else is an application of those two sciences. This is why there should be no Nobel Prize for Economics, essentially how Nobel felt.

Macroeconomists are neither scientists or engineers, they are forecasters. No different than someone who sets the point spread for NFL games.

Posted by: BP | October 10, 2012 at 07:30 PM

There are many untapped markets for on demand manufacturing beyond hobby and home use, although for going from a hobby/home business to a full blown business it may be the right solution depending on the product.

Posted by: android phone | December 14, 2012 at 04:19 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search

Recent Posts



Powered by TypePad