Tale Of Two Books

To paraphrase Mia Wallace * (and here relevance of the analogy must be judged in context of obligatory pop culture reference), every reader of economics based books can be classified either as Freakonomics reader or Undercover reader.

Both the books follows the similar style in the sense that they investigate a series of the issues varying from everyday observations to national policies. However their theme or their messages are different.

First I am sure people will find Freakonomics much more enjoyable that the other. Its quirky and a page turner, an usual description for a book dealing with economics.

In one of the investigation Freakonomics does deal with concept of incentive, (as mentioned in a previous post), however the overall theme of book is not any economic concept, in fact if there is any message of the book, it is the data and how it is analyzed to arrive at conclusions, in other words highlight on the empirical foundations of the economics.

Data and its analysis is of course bedrock on which knowledge is based upon. To me there are two interesting aspects, one is the reliability of data and second is the nature of investigation, on both of which any conclusion is dependent and both of which are susceptible to bias.
Which is why statistics is employed most often with a view to bolster the position, data and analysis then are made to agree with the premise. The science in service of intellectual libido.

Which is why it would be accurate to call statistics the hustler science **.

On the other hand The Undercover Economist is much more subdued. This is not to say it is not entertaining, far from it, but while being similar in style, it has a much more coherent economic theme. The underlying message of book is to understand the issues in terms of economics concepts such scarcity, marginal value, externalities etc.
The book elucidates on this message by investigations of issues which start from seemingly frivolous as price of coffee but progress to the question of why poor countries remain poor.

While Freakonomics is certainly more enjoyable, the Undercover makes economic concepts interesting.

Which is why I am an Undercover guy.

* A brunette Uma Thurman! Is Tarantino crazy ! [What gave you the hind: ed]

** Now this must provoke Sri Sri Sharan Sharmaji

Update: Of course I wrote this post from a perspective of a dummy, some one who is well conversed with economicspeak may or may not share my opinion.

Shorter Ritwik : Statistics doesn't dissimulate or embellish, people do.