Steven Levitt and Why The Best Ideas Don’t Win
Finding the best ideas out there is a rewarding intellectual pursuit. A lot of people are curious about the world and the subjects that interest them. I like to find the best economic, public policy, and historical ideas. Just to name a few. And also the best authors, journalists, bloggers, and podcasters on these types of subjects. The ones you can keep coming back to again and again to learn new things. (Like Tyler Cowen.)
But once I’ve found the best ideas on a certain subject it begs the question, “if this is so obviously right why hasn’t anything been done about it?” If the U.S. Federal tax code is needlessly complex and this leads to legal tax evasion, why not make it simpler? There are dozens of these types of examples. Therefore, knowing the “right” idea is not a prerequisite for legislative or positive change.
Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, said on the EconTalk podcast with Russ Roberts, that he has learned from over 30 years of intellectual life that the best ideas don’t usually win. This is especially notable from a best selling author and one of the world’s most famous economists.
Levitt said this in reference to the lack of policy or laws implemented based on his self-described “okay ideas” and research, which he so modestly referred to. I don’t know the exact reasons for this disconnect but it leads to a larger more important question: Why don’t the best or even better ideas win when it comes to public policy or significant social change?
While it can be hard for a majority or even a minority of people to agree on what are the “best ideas”, there is still too much relativism in the world of ideas today. Largely based a lot on partisan and myopic thinking. The best ideas can change over time, but when someone has at least a good idea, based on reality, it should theoretically be acted upon. Even if it doesn’t conform to what partisans think the real problem is or what the real solutions are.
This gets at a key distinction between ideas that are popular from prominent intellectuals, and the ideas that actually go into specific policies. As the Financial Crisis of 07–08 taught many, the title of expert is not a prerequisite for intellectual accuracy or rigor. But then again this doesn’t mean that the best economists are wrong about everything moving forward.
What the better policy ideas actually are, how change happens, and its consequences is a complex subject. But it is probably important to rigorously study if you believe in the possibilities for improvement from the individual level to the country.
The history of the past 10–15 years of public policy changes shows that partisanship is a major obstacle, but not the only obstacle and possibly an exaggerated one at times. Another problem is great ideas don’t always seem so obvious at the time. For example, it took the internet 4 years to reach 50 million users. Many people did not see the future benefits of the internet, the same way people were skeptical of the TV (13 years to reach 50 million users).
It should be considered a valuable and important pursuit to try and discover the best poverty reduction policies or best improvements to democracy. Is this the primary function of higher education and think tanks? Their work seems more likely to be obscure, bordering on irrelevant outside of their narrow fields. And even when they have really good ideas do they package them in a way that is easy to understand and interesting.
While change is usually more effective and pragmatic from the bottom-up, a prerequisite for positive change is a crystalline understanding of reality. Then again the best solutions will always face challenges once implemented in a complex environment.
It can be sort of disheartening to hear a prominent and popular academic like Levitt express his resignation and earned wisdom, that ideas don’t win just because they are the best. While I think this is a logical truism there are still areas for optimism.
For example, when Levitt talked about the value of entrepreneurs. (A controversial subject depending on your ideology.)
Unlike politicians, whose main job is to get reelected, the job of the entrepreneur is to actually get things done, make a profit, or go out of business. Coming up with a good idea and then testing it out in the world is the basic lesson for a policy entrepreneur too.
This term was first coined by American political scientist John W. Kingdon in Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies in 1984. It broadly describes anyone who can influence policy outcomes for their own interests. Kingdon’s “multiple streams framework” separates the policy process into problems, policy, and politics.
A good policy entrepreneur is someone who is not satisfied with just putting out good works whether in books, blogs, or podcast appearances. They actually have to be instrumental in creating policy or social change.
Russ Roberts describes Milton Friedman as one of the best policy entrepreneurs because he explained things in simple, easy to understand ways. Simple in this context could mean able to persuade both a Congressperson and the average American. How this fits into ideological polarization makes for an interesting challenge. But reasonable people in the middle are willing to be persuaded of good ideas.
Therefore, with ambition, an understanding of the world as it is, not as it ought to be, and enough simple persuasiveness, real change seems certainly possible. The pandemic has taught us that the best ideas don’t easily win, even in the long run. But the speed of the creation of viable vaccines and the possibly revolutionary scientific progress of the mRNA vaccines in particular can make one hopeful for human progress. (Read Matt Ridley for more info on Why mRNA Vaccines Could Revolutionize Medicine.)
While I still find it hard to argue with Levitt’s thesis that the best ideas don’t usually win, I remain an optimist. History and market incentives tell us the best ideas will eventually rise to the top, but not inexorably. The cliche about Americans fits here from the eminent Winston Churchill: “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.”
