Should I start reading The Economist again?

Am I the only economist who does not read The Economist?  Well maybe the first one to confess to it. 

No, it is not because I am too busy and don't have the time.  It is a deliberate decision.  Call it a one-man boycott of ideology that masquerades too often as journalism.  

It wasn't always like that. In fact, I used to love the magazine and its opinionated style.  It was such a refreshing read after American media!  I loved it so much that I preferred buying it at the news stand at a higher price to subscribing, because I could get my hands on it faster that way.  When I spent a year out on the West Coast, my most important complaint was that The Economist arrived later there (on Mondays instead of Saturdays). 

But then I realized that the more I knew about a subject, the less The Economist was making sense.  Its one thing to be opinionated, another to be misinformed and arrogant at the same time.  After one too many articles in this mold, I simply stopped picking up the magazine.  I had a conversation recently with the new economics editor of the magazine (a KSG alum), who said I should take another look, but aside from an occasional thumbing through on a plane ride, I haven't done so.    

Yesterday a friend told me in the hallway that The Economist had quoted me in their current issue. I went online, and there it was, a quote from this blog that opens a longish piece on the rule of law and development.  But what struck me about the piece is how well it was done. Or how much I agreed with what was in there--which is another way of saying the same thing of course.  I thought the article got many of the nuances right, most importantly the distinction--which eludes many people still--between the role of institutions in the short- versus long-run. While institutions "rule" in the long run, in the short run there is a very weak relationship between economic growth and institutional reform.  It also has a very nice chart that superimposes the results of three academic papers on the relationship between the rule of law and long-run development:

      

So should I start reading The Economist again?

Oh, I dunno.  There is so much stuff to read these days...

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

"So should I start reading The Economist again?" - No.

Magazines like this and Financial Times are not aimed at economists, they are aimed at business leaders and politicians who have a built in bias towards the status quo and the triumph of capitalism.

They want to have their prejudices confirmed, and their owners (part of the ruling class) want to see their privilege maintained. If this means misreading economic theory, history or current events in the pursuit of their cause - so be it.

[Sven]

What do you recommend to read instead of The Economist?

[Chris M]

Same for me. I read it cover to cover from about 1992-2003. But their loony take on American politics caused me to doubt if the rest of their coverage was accurate. If they can't figure out that Bush is nuts then why should I trust their coverage of Botswana?

I think maybe what I used to get out of the Economist I get from blogs now.

[greatzamfir]

It's my impression that the crdit crisis has (temporarily?0 softened the Economist a bit.

A question about the graph: the data points are so similar, they must use a very, very similar definition of "rule of law", or more likely the same indicator.

Given that 'rule of law' is hardly a well defined concept, what's the point of using three graphs using the same concept, instead of three graphs that use different concepts? If the trend is similar in the latter case, then there is a reason for multiple graphs, but this seems pointless.

[dissent]

I recently read the Economist and was so disgusted I have hardly been able to pick it up since. (I have a subscription, which means I eye the new arrivals with distaste and generally plop them in the trash after a brief scan.)

The offending passage was a political analysis of the presidential race. The writer was huffing about the effects of a possible victory by a Democrat on the Supreme Court: how that would lead to politicization of nominees and under cut the mission and role of the Supreme Court.

This after the nomination of Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, and Alito. This after Bush vs. Gore.

I am still disgusted and unable to read my own subscription.

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

"Magazines like this and Financial Times are not aimed at economists,"

Actually, the FT is a lot more circumspect than the Economist is. If there's a better economics correspondent than Martin Wolf, I'd like to know who they are.

[inthemachine]

As with any other situation, once you know the bias is there, its pretty easy to adjust for. Besides, where else can you get graphs about global inflation with witty puns in the title?

[Marcos Siqueira]

Should I read the economist? It depends - an economist may say.

The Economist (like the FT, WSJ, etc) is nothing but a collection of the correspondents and journalists that write for it. Sure, the editors play a big role, but in the end the analysis is very dependent on the individual writing it. So the answer will depend on what topics interest you the most and what journalists cover those topics. The FT for example is great on China - Richard McGregor. The economist is really good on Egypt - Max Rodenbeck.

Now the only problem with the Economist is that they use no bylines, which makes it hard to figure out where the information is coming from. So if you really value the importance of knowing the source of that information and figuring out the bias of the writer, then boycotting the economist is not a bad idea. For a paper that talks so much about the importance of transparency they are rather opaque dont you think?

[David]

I would also come in defense of the FT...much better than the Economist.

[Student]

Same impression. The economist's coverage of Russia is ridiculously biased.

But: I liked their persistent prognosis of the subprime crisis even a couple of years ago.

[Ana C.]

I love The Economist! I have a subscription since 1995 and have always read it backwards. The obituaries are fantastic.

[Richard]

I don't want to read something that always confirms my own bias. Plenty of times The Economist has raised points I hadn't thought of.

Also there are few widely published publications that cover as broad a range of topics as The Economist.

[Matt]

I started reading The Economist fairly regularly when I lived in Russia in 99-01, in part because it was a change from the few Newsweek subscription I had and also because it was sold at subsidized prices, making it afordable- 50RR at the time, I think, not much more than a Russian magazine. What turned me off after a while was that all the "new" articles, including the news financial articles, clearly indicated that the dot.com situation was a house of cards about to come down. It was pretty obvious from the news coverage. But the editorial content, and often the editorial content appended to the news articles, kept saying the opposite- that no regulation was needed, that everything had changed, etc. I didn't know if it was foolishness or dishonesty but either way I decided that they could not be trusted very much.

[Sock Puppet of the Great Satan]

I guess the advantage of the Economist is the awfulness of its American competition (Time, US News and World Report, Newsweek, Businessweek).

Even if you're just above average looking and only moderately intelligent, you can look great in a crowd of the stupid and ugly.

One thing I have noticed about the Economist: they have had a reasonable record in calling the peak of a bubblemonths before the shit hits the fan. Think Asian crisis, dot-com bubble, they had cover articles on the immanent shitfest about 2-6 months before.

[david]

The conclusion of this exercise appears to be a consensus that The Economist was wrong about Bush and has a free-markets bias. But--and for me this is crucial--it's got broader coverage than any other weekly.

Add to that the density of information--no magazine or newspaper even comes close--and for me we've got required reading.

[Dominic]

If you're considering another look at the Economist, try downloading the audio edition. I find it good to listen to at the gym and walking to work etc.

And I have to disagree with comments on the tone. There aren't many news sources which make me laugh out loud several times in a single article about foreign investment in oil fields!

[Jeff]

Yup, it's all about the punny titles (and the obits). I still love the Economist.

What part of the West Coast did you live on? I live in LA, and 3 weeks out of 4 it arrives on Friday.

[Peter]

Their coverage of American politics has been extremely dim lately. Just one example - describing McCain as a steadfast opponent of torture. That's what you'd expect from a blowhard like Chris Matthews. But there's also a lot of good stuff in there.

[Sebastian]

I agree that the economist varies strongly in quality by region: Africa is outstanding, Latin America only soso (even once discounted for bias), EU coverage is great, but many of the individual EU countries are frequently off. My sense as a total layperson is that science and technology is great, as a re about 50% of the large surveys they write.

That means in total there's a lot of great stuff to go around, but Dani's point is still important and troublesome: you often catch them saying very strange things about things you actually know something about, but it's hard to detect that if you don't.

[Michael]

The main problem with the Economist article here is that it does not take into account the learning going on in the field. As a person who works in the field, I find it is a bit like reading debates by physicists on who will win the next football game. For more comments from the field you can follow my blog qhickthink

[Arthur McMolecule]

For a more heterodox take on things, there's always:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/

Their articles are always more interesting than the economist!

[bee]

I too must admit that I gave up on the Economist. I found that the Economist tries too hard to sound intelligent.

I do agree that it has no direct competition in the US. The news magazines in the US are dominated by journalists who are seeking to communicate to comic book readers. This is not a function of the readers, its a function of their opinions about readers.

[bee]

I too must admit that I gave up on the Economist. I found that the Economist tries too hard to sound intelligent.

I do agree that it has no direct competition in the US. The news magazines in the US are dominated by journalists who are seeking to communicate to comic book readers. This is not a function of the readers, its a function of their opinions about readers.

[KevanB]

I began reading the Economist asa schoolboy in 1962. I still read it. It has been irritating me, making me laugh all that time. At current prices this means I have spent 12,000 or so Euros on the magazine. A figure this discussion caused me to work out. But then what else would I have spent the money on?

[Tebow]

Here I thought I was sophisticated when I graduated from Time! Now I have to switch to the AER? haha

Despite the magazine(/newspaper)'s bias, is the Economist Intelligence Unit a solid source for academic work?