Put 10 economists in a room and you’ll have 11 views, they say. But why are these pundits so keen to socialise? A letter to a newspaper suggesting early public spending cuts has to be signed by 20 economists: 60 then put their name to the counter view. How many make a quorum?

Economists are clearly very sociable people. In seems they hunt in packs. But people who deal in numbers for a living should realise that numbers count for little on these round robins.

When the “Liverpool Six” economists tried to force the Tory government to adopt a more monetarist stance in 1992 it required only half a dozen of them. By the time a group of German economists sought to delay European monetary union in 1998 there were 155 signing the letter. At present some 350 have put their name to the proposed “Robin Hood tax” on financial transactions.

But that fails to beat the record set in 1983 when these mass economist lobbies started with 364 signing a letter claiming Mrs Thatcher was veering too far to the right. Like most subsequent mass missives from economists who are mainly academic, that letter was ignored by the target of the lobbying.

The latest volley of signatures started with 20 economists writing to the Sunday Times telling the UK government to start spending cuts immediately; days later more than five dozen signed two letters to the Financial Times calling for cuts to be delayed. The letters roughly reflect the views of Britain’s two main political parties.

It is good that the country’s future is being debated but 60 does not necessarily trounce 20 on this issue. Quality counts as well as quantity, so both groups are competing to include Nobel prizewinners, former Bank of England deputy governors and interest-rate committee members of ex-heads of the US Fed. Professors rank above fellows, readers and mere lecturers – but there are remarkably few signatories in either camp from commerce rather than academia.

Some names inevitably come round regularly on these multi-signature letters. Joseph Stiglitz’s pen had barely left the Robin Hood petition before it endorsed the FT call to defer cuts: David Blanchflower was one of nine economists writing to The Times just days after his FT letter.

And what does it all prove? That economists can circulate a letter among themselves – though whether all the signers agree with every word must be doubted. For the intended readers of these shows of economic strength the moral must be to read the argument rather than the celebrity authors. Nevermind how many economists it takes to change a policy, it takes only one person to state a sensible case.

Share this: