This year’s Economic Report of the President has a chapter on improving outcomes for disadvantaged children. It surveys the literature and finds that, in short, everything works. There is not a single program identified as not providing significant benefits. There is not a single study cited showing anything other than benefits.
I know that as biased as journals are against “null-effect” results, there have been published studies that are not as optimistic as what the ERP reports. My perhaps uncharitable view is that this chapter in the ERP does not qualify as a survey of the literature. It is only a survey of every published finding that appears to support existing government interventions.
I believe that if economists are going to play a constructive role in policy analysis, they have to be free to report objectively. It seems to me that for many years now, particularly under this President, the Council of Economic Advisers has not been allowed to be objective.
When economists become lawyers advocating for their client’s positions, then their pronouncements will be given just as much credibility.
“What’s that they’re saying about Head Start? No demonstrable benefit? Hmm.. Better call Saul.”
So, can we hold them to this? Since everything is working so well, will our problems go away (or at least be better) in 20 years?
“Allowed” has nothing- literally nothing- to do with it. 99.9% of economists are prostitutes for politics.
Publication bias. Proof something didn’t work would be front page news. Lack of proof isn’t worth publishing.
Devil’s advocate: sure, everything works. Let’s assume it’s true. But we still live in a world of finite resources. Do they all pass a cost-benefit test? Does even one?
I think the purpose is 400 pages to say “we are up for anything.”