Writing a “best books of the year” post for 2014 means choosing among flawed books.
Six months after Piketty’s Capital made its splash with the “law of capitalism” that r>g, we have Pikettarians saying that, of course, Piketty never said that r>g explains the rise in inequality in recent years that concerns everyone, and in fact anyone who thinks he said that is a knave who has not read the book. I was among the many who never made it through Capital (it gave a new and different meaning to the expression “widely unread”), so I will take it on faith that the whole r>g thing was a head fake. Anyway, Capital does not make my list.
I think that number 1 is Complexity, by David Colander and Roland Kupers. On many pages, I highlighted insightful passages. On many other pages, I highlighted irksome passages. Look for a longer review from me next year.
Probably number 2 is Trillion Dollar Economists, by Robert Litan. It is a great achievement, but even so I wanted a different book.
Number 3 might be Isabel Sawhill’s Generation Unbound, about the pathology of unwed motherhood (it’s not just for teenagers any more) and what to do about it. However, I think that the question of whether “society” should be trying to prevent births of a certain type (namely, from unplanned pregnancies) is more difficult than she makes it out to be. Again, I have a review forthcoming.
Number 4 might be Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber, Fragile By Design. The financial crisis continues to stimulate books on banking and related topics, and of the recent lot I thought this one had the strongest historical and international perspective. However, in the end, I found its main thesis, that U.S. banking policy is hindered by populism, unpersuasive.
Number 5 might be Mark Robert Rank, PhD, Thomas A. Hirschl, PhD, and Kirk A. Foster, PhD, Chasing the American Dream, which provides a good empirical study of income dynamics using longitudinal data.
Finally, there is a category of books written by friends of mine, in which I recommend Russ Roberts’ How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life, Megan McArdle’s The Upside of Down, and Elizabeth Green’s How to Build a Better Teacher.
UPDATE: Here is Tyler’s list.
Complexity? Yuck.
I’m about half-way through it. So far: wordy, wordy, wordy; not saying much that’s insightful; and an absurd rework of the famous “I, Pencil” story. And that’s your favorite book of the year? Either you have odd tastes or the rest are truly terrible.
I kept gravitating back and forth between thinking their view (especially on government, but also on non profits) was either spectacularly naive or refreshingly tabula rasa.
I found their view of government to be incoherent. One one page, they made statements about government that directly contradicted one another, without seeming to notice. Their policy ideas were refreshing and/or naive.
“COMPLEXITY”:
I watched on YouTube a presentation – I think by Colander – of the main themes of “Complexity and the Art …”; I was disappointed both by the presentation “skills” of the co-author and the summarised contents of his book – my memory is not clear, but I seemed to have been especially disappointed with the policy part which failed to learn the lessons of complexity. At any rate, I simply felt deterred from reading the book.
“CAPITAL”:
By contrast, recently I had the pleasure to get to know Prof. Stefan Homburg on the occasion of his giving a brief and brilliant talk on Piketty’s “Capital” in Heidelberg. In his presentation, Prof. Homburg conveyed the main insights of the following short and incisive discussion paper that I imagine will prove a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the Piketty- debate.
http://diskussionspapiere.wiwi.uni-hannover.de/pdf_bib/dp-530.pdf
Thanks for the excellent list.
I have a couple of little quibbles, though (which you should take with a grain of salt). First, why devote over 100 words — more than for any selection — and prime real-estate in the post to a book that does *not* make your list?! Second, why hedge so much about “might be” number X? I normally appreciate your even-handed approach to issues, but this is needlessly mealy-mouthed. The list is obviously your opinion, and no reasonably person will object if you change your mind tomorrow. Third, why bury the “books by friends”? You leave open two interpretations: to avoid bias, you consider them ineligible for the list; or, although you did not enjoy them yourself, you feel compelled to mention the books because they were written by friends. The motivations are opposite!