For AEA academics, ideological redistribution is more important than economic growth benefitting everyone.

From AEA P&P, a measure of an organization by John H. Cochrane.  Basically documenting yet another institution (AEA, American Economics Association) captured by the Woke and brought low by irrelevance.  As he documents, the papers for the annual meeting reflect a deep fascination with Racism, Genderism, Social Justice issues, etc.  A massive intellectual investment in ideological irrelevance.

And in a time of economic turmoil, broad and deep, Cochrane comments on what is missing from the agenda.  

Perhaps a better way to characterize the list is to think about what is surprisingly, stunningly, incredibly absent, even if one regards the AEA as devoted to "pressing public policy concerns" rather than fundamental research, and especially if the AEA is about economics--incentives, budget constraints, markets--as a way of thinking about public policy. 

There is nothing on inflation, federal reserve, monetary or fiscal policy, the effects of the $5 trillion dollar stimulus, the astounding February 2020 3.5% unemployment rate, the speed and nature of the covid recession, and the equal speed of recovery to the same unemployment rate. Search and matching vs. Phillips curves, supply vs. demand in the covid recession, and more. Macroeconomics altogether gets one very technical session. 

There is nothing on growth. The US long run growth rate fell in half starting in 2020. Why this sclerosis? A raging debate in economics, have we just run out of ideas?  

Even among progressive concerns, there is nothing on climate! Not even climate equity, climate justice, and the rest. There is nothing on environment at all. 

There is nothing on regulatory stasis. Even the left has figured out that the regulatory state is a problem, as it blocks windmills and solar panels. (See a delightful Ezra Kein in NYT. New York's congestion pricing scheme, a perfect example of economic and environmental win-win is stymied for years by, you guessed it, environmental and equity nitpicking.) 

Covid-19. All the AEA can include about it is racial and gender inequity. There was an outpouring of work integrating economic and epidemiological approaches. (My own modest contribution.) This is a genuine interdisciplinary scientific advance, that should be immensely useful in the next pandemic. Silence. There is study of the immense failure of FDA, CDC, and other bureaucracies. There is great work evaluating the effectiveness of lockdowns, masks, school closings. We don't even hear of the disastrous effect on disadvantaged minorities of school closings. Is even the AEA in thrall of teacher's unions? The silence is deafening. Or rather the noise: nine papers, all on gender and racial difference in covid-19 impacts.  

 

Housing. Still a disaster. Zoning laws, affordable housing mandates, a return to housing projects?  Not even the gender/race/inequality aspects. 

Public finance. Our tax system is a mess. Did the Trump corporate tax cuts unleash growth? Did they make inequality greater? Is an international corporate tax minimum a good idea? Tax policy is not just about redistribution, more questions to which the answer is a wealth tax; incentives used to be at the heart of tax policy. 

Trade. The one small group on the history of globalization only begs the rest. Trump started tariffs, pulled us out of TPP. Is trade over? Can we fragment the globe and still produce efficiency? Will the one thing left and right agree on, re-shoring, industrial policy, protection, work out? 

"Hidden debt" sounds interesting. But isn't the looming insolvency of social security and medicaid, the inevitable consequences of 5% structural deficits forever, the debt sitting right in front of your face, also a "pressing" public policy concern? At a minimum, how about an update on how r<g, secular stagnation stimulus, hysteresis, MMT, and painless fiscal expansion are going? 

Corporate finance, IO, etc. Are the tech companies monopolies even though they give us stuff for free? How much monopoly is government granted -- see baby formula shenanigans. "Stakeholder capitalism, needed freedom or political control?" We're missing a lot of progressive policies too! Oh yes, and tech company censorship/content regulation. That seems a pressing policy concern. 

Immigration. I'm an open borders libertarian, but even so you have to score the immigration sessions as pretty one-sided politically, and not even considering the important parts of the debate. And they miss the economics of the question, focused only on social-justice questions. How much is world GDP lowered by immigration restrictions? How do you open immigration and run a welfare state? Whining about injustice does not answer the important questions. 

Race, crime and policing. Important, cops are shooting too many people. But on the list of policy issues needing addressing, the explosion homicide by non-cops -- 1,000 times larger headcount -- surely needs some analysis? Most of the people getting killed are poor and Black. Solve every murder? How about a session "disparate impact of the 2020-2022 crime wave on people of color, new immigrants and other marginalized and disadvantaged communities?"  

Education, another policy issue that should be the top of progressive concern. Choice vs. teachers unions and the horrible results, especially for minorities and the poor. On the top of things that entrench social and income inequality in the US, this is it, and teachers' unions arguably bear much of the blame. But we should ask the question. 

Since we're veering off to social science, if we care about equity and gender, do facts on low income single motherhood not matter at all? In many states more than half of all children are born to single mothers on medicaid. 

Last but not least: censorship and free speech in academia. The AEA has lots of committees on the operation the profession. Not one on free speech, free inquiry, the politicization of science funding, measuring political or intellectual diversity, pledges of allegiance to DEI programs as part of employment, and most of all critical inquiry whether the AER and other journals remain open to diverse points of view. Many other professional organizations are turning in to political advocacy and censorship organizations. And so forth. Really, is there any other issue that a professional organization of research economists should take on, as a matter of its proper focus and expertise, than free and open inquiry in academia, defense of its members when they are canceled or fired, and pressuring universities to adopt Chicago Principles and Kalven Report? Silence. 

The AEA appears to be entirely focused on issues which might entail coercive redistribution of private resources for ideological ends based perceived slights and historical injustices.  

They also appear to be studiously not focusing on issues which might generate better economic and productivity outcomes for everyone.  A pox on the Woke.