What do you think?
Rate this book
Cogs and Monsters: What Economics Is, and What It Should Be
How economics needs to change to keep pace with the twenty-first century and the digital economy
Digital technology, big data, big tech, machine learning, and AI are revolutionizing both the tools of economics and the phenomena it seeks to measure, understand, and shape. In Cogs and Monsters , Diane Coyle explores the enormous problems―but also opportunities―facing economics today and examines what it must do to help policymakers solve the world’s crises, from pandemic recovery and inequality to slow growth and the climate emergency.
Mainstream economics, Coyle says, still assumes people are “cogs”―self-interested, calculating, independent agents interacting in defined contexts. But the digital economy is much more characterized by “monsters”―untethered, snowballing, and socially influenced unknowns. What is worse, by treating people as cogs, economics is creating its own monsters, leaving itself without the tools to understand the new problems it faces. In response, Coyle asks whether economic individualism is still valid in the digital economy, whether we need to measure growth and progress in new ways, and whether economics can ever be objective, since it influences what it analyzes. Just as important, the discipline needs to correct its striking lack of diversity and inclusion if it is to be able to offer new solutions to new problems.
Filled with original insights, Cogs and Monsters offers a road map for how economics can adapt to the rewiring of society, including by digital technologies, and realize its potential to play a hugely positive role in the twenty-first century.
Digital technology, big data, big tech, machine learning, and AI are revolutionizing both the tools of economics and the phenomena it seeks to measure, understand, and shape. In Cogs and Monsters , Diane Coyle explores the enormous problems―but also opportunities―facing economics today and examines what it must do to help policymakers solve the world’s crises, from pandemic recovery and inequality to slow growth and the climate emergency.
Mainstream economics, Coyle says, still assumes people are “cogs”―self-interested, calculating, independent agents interacting in defined contexts. But the digital economy is much more characterized by “monsters”―untethered, snowballing, and socially influenced unknowns. What is worse, by treating people as cogs, economics is creating its own monsters, leaving itself without the tools to understand the new problems it faces. In response, Coyle asks whether economic individualism is still valid in the digital economy, whether we need to measure growth and progress in new ways, and whether economics can ever be objective, since it influences what it analyzes. Just as important, the discipline needs to correct its striking lack of diversity and inclusion if it is to be able to offer new solutions to new problems.
Filled with original insights, Cogs and Monsters offers a road map for how economics can adapt to the rewiring of society, including by digital technologies, and realize its potential to play a hugely positive role in the twenty-first century.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published October 12, 2021
59 people are currently reading
943 people want to read
About the author
Diane Coyle
30 books55 followersDame Diane Coyle is a British economist, academic and writer. Since March 2018, she has been the Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge, co-directing the Bennett Institute.
Coyle's early career as an economist was followed by a period in journalism including being economics editor at The Independent from 1993 to 2001. She was professor of economics at University of Manchester from 2014 to 2018. She was vice-chair of the BBC Trust from 2011 to 2016 and a member of the UK Competition Commission from 2001 until 2009.
Coyle has written nine books on economics.
Coyle's early career as an economist was followed by a period in journalism including being economics editor at The Independent from 1993 to 2001. She was professor of economics at University of Manchester from 2014 to 2018. She was vice-chair of the BBC Trust from 2011 to 2016 and a member of the UK Competition Commission from 2001 until 2009.
Coyle has written nine books on economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
November 12, 2021
I’m personally always worried when I pick up a book on economics because it can either be extremely difficult to understand due to jargon or it might be decent. I will say that Diane Coyle did a better job than most by making this book accessible to a wide range of people. In the introduction, she says that was part of her goal, and I’ve noticed that a lot of authors say this and somehow lose their way within a few chapters of the book. Like many other authors, there were times where the author assumes the reader knows some very specific language and doesn’t bother explaining what something is, how it works or why it’s an issue. Aside from that, this is a great book, and Diane is an awesome writer. She discusses issues within the field of economics such as how it hasn’t evolved much, how there are issues of sexism and other biases in the field as well as how the field has made some social conditions much worse. She presents strong arguments and some practical solutions, and I definitely enjoyed the book overall.
May 30, 2022
Of course economics has failed by overpromising on its ability to predict. Of course, excessive faith in the idea of homo economicus has limited the utility of economic models. Of course traditional economic yardsticks and models have broken down when applied to the digital economy. And of course economics has been totally political while pretending to be objective and neutral. This is a small sample of the blindingly obvious propositions that fill this book. There was not much here that was original or all that interesting and precious little in the way of constructive recommendations to deal with these issues beyond naming them.
Yes it's true that economists make less stupid mistakes than they did a generation ago. And Ms. Coyle's heart is in the right place, so with more people like her in the field, things will continue to improve over time. But this book is not a shining beacon to lead us to the promised land.
Yes it's true that economists make less stupid mistakes than they did a generation ago. And Ms. Coyle's heart is in the right place, so with more people like her in the field, things will continue to improve over time. But this book is not a shining beacon to lead us to the promised land.
May 28, 2023
Pretty good overview of problems facing economics as a profession. Chapters on technology and reflexivity quite good.
July 26, 2023
Diane Coyle is an experienced economist, both in private sector and as an academic. Her large amount of experience and perspective comes through in this book. The basic idea starts with the idea that critiques of economics don't always connect with what economists actually do. Economics is not stuck in an old mentality of a free market is best; economists are instead grappling with difficult externalities and how to adapt to increasing technology, data, and AI. Economics is changing, and she hopes it is going to change a lot. People need to understand history of economics just as much as knowing how to program and do econometric calculations--because there have been a lot of paradigm shifts, and economics is still shifting right now.
Economics is not about observing from the outside. Economists are very much part of what they are doing. Economic policies shape what economics is and does. There are lots of feedback looks and unintended consequences to policies--because economics deals with people, and people do not always do what they expect you to do. They change. They adapt. She has a metaphor that studying and changing economic policies are like playing croquet in Alice in Wonderland, where the croquet ball and mallets don't want to play.
She argues that you can't separate the descriptive from the normative. Economists have values. You can't be impartial. But often those values can not be adequately reflected in market prices. And the end of the book goes more into the digital economy and how it does not fit traditional economic models.
I would suggest it only if you have a pretty good background and interest in economics. It felt a bit rambling at times. There were so many good individual points (some were glossed over too quickly), but I don't know if they really combined into an overall thesis, as the subject (the whole of economics) was a bit too ambitious and far-reaching. I also don't know if economics is going to go the way that Diane Coyle wants it to--inflation, AI, and polarizing politics are taking us in unexpected and uncertain directions.
Economics is not about observing from the outside. Economists are very much part of what they are doing. Economic policies shape what economics is and does. There are lots of feedback looks and unintended consequences to policies--because economics deals with people, and people do not always do what they expect you to do. They change. They adapt. She has a metaphor that studying and changing economic policies are like playing croquet in Alice in Wonderland, where the croquet ball and mallets don't want to play.
She argues that you can't separate the descriptive from the normative. Economists have values. You can't be impartial. But often those values can not be adequately reflected in market prices. And the end of the book goes more into the digital economy and how it does not fit traditional economic models.
I would suggest it only if you have a pretty good background and interest in economics. It felt a bit rambling at times. There were so many good individual points (some were glossed over too quickly), but I don't know if they really combined into an overall thesis, as the subject (the whole of economics) was a bit too ambitious and far-reaching. I also don't know if economics is going to go the way that Diane Coyle wants it to--inflation, AI, and polarizing politics are taking us in unexpected and uncertain directions.
April 30, 2022
A modern thesis of the economy of the past, present, and future. It is dense, but that is a given when one considers its subject. That said, it is very readable and tells a very compelling story that I would recommend to anyone interested in economics and the digital ecosystem to explore.
March 12, 2023
The meta issues of economics are always somehow on the fringes of every economics book, the discussion on the evolution of the discipline lurking or trying to tear down the OLD ECONOMICS.
Coyle managed to put it in the spotlight, discuss the past, the present and the future with unique insights from both academia, private sector and regulation and Very much succeeded. And most importantly - she manages to relay her point in a very concise way
Coyle managed to put it in the spotlight, discuss the past, the present and the future with unique insights from both academia, private sector and regulation and Very much succeeded. And most importantly - she manages to relay her point in a very concise way
July 30, 2023
Lots of questions, not too many answers
Review book, that collects together thoughts and opinions of many economists, points out many problems with economics, but doesn’t really lay out any kind of vision for how to solve the questions posed by the radical changes in social and economic systems in the past 50 years.
Review book, that collects together thoughts and opinions of many economists, points out many problems with economics, but doesn’t really lay out any kind of vision for how to solve the questions posed by the radical changes in social and economic systems in the past 50 years.
July 11, 2023
I once believed that Economics deserved its privileged place at the pinnacle of social sciences; that the econometric wizards of macroeconomic theory fell short only in their ability to communicate the correct answer to the politically driven masses.
Tis not so! Economic theories influence the world they seek to explain. Economists too are politically driven. Policy economics and academic economics are not the same. Economic models are only models. The world is changing.
Especially in the AI Age, when we believe everything to be explainable by data hungry algorithms… Coyle explains that we must not forget narrative approaches: economic history, sociology, history.
My key general take away (e.g., why this book is important even if you don’t give a damn about economics) is this: so much of our digital world is focused on “explanation”, yet we must not forget that we are also creators of the future. While much of the world is ordered, much of it is true chaos. Thus, our explanations of the world shape it as much as they describe it. If we succumb to the urge to model, we risk becoming being chained to our own explanations.
Tis not so! Economic theories influence the world they seek to explain. Economists too are politically driven. Policy economics and academic economics are not the same. Economic models are only models. The world is changing.
Especially in the AI Age, when we believe everything to be explainable by data hungry algorithms… Coyle explains that we must not forget narrative approaches: economic history, sociology, history.
My key general take away (e.g., why this book is important even if you don’t give a damn about economics) is this: so much of our digital world is focused on “explanation”, yet we must not forget that we are also creators of the future. While much of the world is ordered, much of it is true chaos. Thus, our explanations of the world shape it as much as they describe it. If we succumb to the urge to model, we risk becoming being chained to our own explanations.
October 15, 2023
Cogs and Monsters" offers an illuminating peek into the evolution of economics, primarily from an academic perspective. Still, the narrative also delves into the realm of "applied economists", the unsung "heroes" of finance and public policy-making. Written by an academic economist, this book is a testament to the shared sentiment of many in the field: the urgent need for reform, especially after the Great Recession.
There's been a multitude of books, both for enthusiasts and scholars, echoing this very sentiment post-recession. Notable mentions that spring to my mind are “The Myth of The Rational Market,” a reflection almost immediate to the recession, and the engaging “Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics” from 2015. While a chunk of mainstream critiques lean heavily towards Behaviorist interpretations, Coyle's approach is refreshingly unique. Instead of aligning with a particular alternative school of thought, she embarks on a comprehensive critique, highlighting the discipline's overreliance on assumptions that, unfortunately, misled many in the past.
Yet, Coyle's treatment of heterodox approaches felt somewhat on the surface. She brings to light intriguing avenues like agent-based models, complexity science, and network science. The realm of machine learning and AI, while not strictly economics, is also explored. These modern techniques intersect profoundly with mathematical economics. This is evident in concepts like bounded rationality, pioneered by Herb Simon, and the myriad of optimization methods that both AI and economics borrow from each other.
Woven within these discussions are mentions of concerted efforts to establish a unified heterodox school of thought, a contender to the neo-classical model. The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) stands out as a forerunner in this quest.
However, where Coyle shines is in her deep dive into the intricacies of the “Socialist Calculation Dilemma”. This age-old economic conundrum ponders whether a centrally planned economy can indeed allocate resources with the same efficiency as the invisible hand of market prices. On a conceptual level, it underscores the mammoth challenges a central planner would confront. This isn't just about the sheer number of goods and services or the countless production possibilities. It's about the intangible, often elusive, nature of human desires, preferences, and knowledge, which are constantly in flux.
Diving deeper, it’s worth noting that even with today's advanced computational prowess, the dilemma remains unresolved. Why, you might ask? It's not merely a problem of computation. The challenge lies in the data. Prices in a market economy are not just numbers; they represent a decentralized process of aggregating dispersed and often tacit knowledge. Every time a person makes a purchase, they reveal a preference, but only to a certain extent. This "revealed preference" doesn't capture the entirety of a person's utility structure. There are latent desires, future uncertainties, and evolving tastes that remain unobserved. Even if we had supercomputers to process data, the issue remains: what data? How do you capture the emotional, cultural, or spontaneous aspects of human decision-making?
Moreover, there's another facet to consider: innovation. Market economies often thrive on competition and innovation. Without prices to signal scarcity or surplus, how would a central planner recognize the need for innovation or the direction it should take?
To truly appreciate this dilemma's depth, imagine trying to optimize an exceedingly complex mathematical problem. This isn't just about having many variables, which represent goods or production functions. It's about the dynamic, non-linear, and sometimes unpredictable nature of these variables, representing human preferences and behaviors. This challenge becomes not only computationally intractable but also conceptually elusive.
In essence, "Cogs and Monsters" serves as a fascinating primer for those new to these economic quandaries. But for those who've traipsed these academic halls before, it might echo previous, albeit significant, discourses.
There's been a multitude of books, both for enthusiasts and scholars, echoing this very sentiment post-recession. Notable mentions that spring to my mind are “The Myth of The Rational Market,” a reflection almost immediate to the recession, and the engaging “Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics” from 2015. While a chunk of mainstream critiques lean heavily towards Behaviorist interpretations, Coyle's approach is refreshingly unique. Instead of aligning with a particular alternative school of thought, she embarks on a comprehensive critique, highlighting the discipline's overreliance on assumptions that, unfortunately, misled many in the past.
Yet, Coyle's treatment of heterodox approaches felt somewhat on the surface. She brings to light intriguing avenues like agent-based models, complexity science, and network science. The realm of machine learning and AI, while not strictly economics, is also explored. These modern techniques intersect profoundly with mathematical economics. This is evident in concepts like bounded rationality, pioneered by Herb Simon, and the myriad of optimization methods that both AI and economics borrow from each other.
Woven within these discussions are mentions of concerted efforts to establish a unified heterodox school of thought, a contender to the neo-classical model. The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) stands out as a forerunner in this quest.
However, where Coyle shines is in her deep dive into the intricacies of the “Socialist Calculation Dilemma”. This age-old economic conundrum ponders whether a centrally planned economy can indeed allocate resources with the same efficiency as the invisible hand of market prices. On a conceptual level, it underscores the mammoth challenges a central planner would confront. This isn't just about the sheer number of goods and services or the countless production possibilities. It's about the intangible, often elusive, nature of human desires, preferences, and knowledge, which are constantly in flux.
Diving deeper, it’s worth noting that even with today's advanced computational prowess, the dilemma remains unresolved. Why, you might ask? It's not merely a problem of computation. The challenge lies in the data. Prices in a market economy are not just numbers; they represent a decentralized process of aggregating dispersed and often tacit knowledge. Every time a person makes a purchase, they reveal a preference, but only to a certain extent. This "revealed preference" doesn't capture the entirety of a person's utility structure. There are latent desires, future uncertainties, and evolving tastes that remain unobserved. Even if we had supercomputers to process data, the issue remains: what data? How do you capture the emotional, cultural, or spontaneous aspects of human decision-making?
Moreover, there's another facet to consider: innovation. Market economies often thrive on competition and innovation. Without prices to signal scarcity or surplus, how would a central planner recognize the need for innovation or the direction it should take?
To truly appreciate this dilemma's depth, imagine trying to optimize an exceedingly complex mathematical problem. This isn't just about having many variables, which represent goods or production functions. It's about the dynamic, non-linear, and sometimes unpredictable nature of these variables, representing human preferences and behaviors. This challenge becomes not only computationally intractable but also conceptually elusive.
In essence, "Cogs and Monsters" serves as a fascinating primer for those new to these economic quandaries. But for those who've traipsed these academic halls before, it might echo previous, albeit significant, discourses.
February 23, 2022
A fairly dry account of modern economics, but with enough interesting ideas to not be engaging and relevant.
Not having a good understanding of economics in any way, I picked this up as a primer of sorts. Diane Coyle does an excellent job in this regard. Her first chapter sets out by debunking some myths about modern day economics, responsibilities economists now have to account for factors like everyday lifestyles, digital business and the public 'good'. It's too long for an opening chapter but really challenged a lot of my own preconceived ideas about economics. Chapter 2 is the weakest chapter, and tends towards bemoaning economists not 'fitting in' to either social science or mathematics. However, it is followed up by two exemplary chapters. One delves into AI's, welfare economics and human nature, whilst the other tackles economists role in governance, through inflation and the digital economy.
Coyle encourages a shift away from analytical models or singular answers, but I never found it particularly clear what would be put in its place, if anything. She certainly seems to have an ambitious 'ideal' economist in mind, who can assist governance through a more holistic, value driven approach to what we consider to be 'the economy'. But it still seemed a little wooly to me by the end of the book, with the exception of her masterful exploration of welfare economics and the digital economy.
These two areas are the best part of Coyle's analysis. With welfare economics, Coyle demonstrates how it has fallen out of vogue since the 1980's due to shifts in academia and politics. Digital economics are not currently, appropriately, measurable. Economists are still waiting for a review in 2025 for any meaningful analysis to be accomplished. But Coyle is very good at illustrating how economists should not measure the digital economy; profitability, employment or innovation. All three of these areas in the digital economy are dealt with in depth, the most interesting one being when Coyle shows how little 'profitability' actually matters for huge technology giants because of their reliance on user base, rather than any traditional yardsticks like 'product' or 'price'. These issues are concretely dealt with in the final two chapters, and help to explain a lot fo the shortfalls in economic analysis and what the digital economy means for more technocratic economists.
For anybody interested in digital economy or welfare economics, this book is a very good starting point. In general Coyle's sketch of modern economists is helpful to beginners like me, but it was never developed enough to reach something resembling a firm conclusion on the issues discussed.
Not having a good understanding of economics in any way, I picked this up as a primer of sorts. Diane Coyle does an excellent job in this regard. Her first chapter sets out by debunking some myths about modern day economics, responsibilities economists now have to account for factors like everyday lifestyles, digital business and the public 'good'. It's too long for an opening chapter but really challenged a lot of my own preconceived ideas about economics. Chapter 2 is the weakest chapter, and tends towards bemoaning economists not 'fitting in' to either social science or mathematics. However, it is followed up by two exemplary chapters. One delves into AI's, welfare economics and human nature, whilst the other tackles economists role in governance, through inflation and the digital economy.
Coyle encourages a shift away from analytical models or singular answers, but I never found it particularly clear what would be put in its place, if anything. She certainly seems to have an ambitious 'ideal' economist in mind, who can assist governance through a more holistic, value driven approach to what we consider to be 'the economy'. But it still seemed a little wooly to me by the end of the book, with the exception of her masterful exploration of welfare economics and the digital economy.
These two areas are the best part of Coyle's analysis. With welfare economics, Coyle demonstrates how it has fallen out of vogue since the 1980's due to shifts in academia and politics. Digital economics are not currently, appropriately, measurable. Economists are still waiting for a review in 2025 for any meaningful analysis to be accomplished. But Coyle is very good at illustrating how economists should not measure the digital economy; profitability, employment or innovation. All three of these areas in the digital economy are dealt with in depth, the most interesting one being when Coyle shows how little 'profitability' actually matters for huge technology giants because of their reliance on user base, rather than any traditional yardsticks like 'product' or 'price'. These issues are concretely dealt with in the final two chapters, and help to explain a lot fo the shortfalls in economic analysis and what the digital economy means for more technocratic economists.
For anybody interested in digital economy or welfare economics, this book is a very good starting point. In general Coyle's sketch of modern economists is helpful to beginners like me, but it was never developed enough to reach something resembling a firm conclusion on the issues discussed.
June 19, 2022
I've not read much academic work in economics - some politics/philosophy & history books I've read have, inevitably, touched on it, but my greatest exposure to economics is in the news. This book proved to be pretty accessible to a relative outside to the field. It's also encouraged me to read a little more on the subject.
In terms of the content of the book, some of the broader conclusions drawn (the need for economics as a field to adapt to a changing environment, for more cross-fertilization between various social sciences as well as other areas of study, e.t.c.) were oddly concerning. I say that, because the book is written as though these suggestions are revolutionary and somewhat contraversial among economists, when they seem like obvious priorities to me. The book started off quite defensive describing criticisms of economics as a study as straw-man arguments that didn't really account for what economists actually do and how they work. That whole segment itself struck me as somewhat straw-man in construction, because while I've heard (and made) criticisms like the ones listed about specific economic policies, or particular writers, I've never known anyone to offer such criticisms of the entire profession. I didn't think there was much debate over the point or existence of economics as a field in the wider world, but over the methods used and conclusions drawn. Having read this book, I'm far more convinced that concerns over how economists work are legitimate than I ever was. This book suggests that there are vast areas of common practice, which economists know are wrong, or inaccurate, or give entirely incomplete pictures, which are then still used to generate policy advice. Similarly there is a apparently a collective blindness about the impossibility of completely objective judgement in these situations. If this is an accurate portrayal of the the industry, economists seem to be happily passing judgements they claim (and even believe) are objective, as they flatly refuse to acknowledge that by virtue of being part of the economy they're studying and changing, they automatically have a vested interest. All of that is particularly strange, as many of the models they use or have used in the past have been based on the idea that people act with rational self interest. So, somehow, economists seem to be convinced that while all other humans act with rational self interest, they themselves do not. If this is a reliable portrait of the how a majority of economists operate, it's a bit terrifying.
In terms of the content of the book, some of the broader conclusions drawn (the need for economics as a field to adapt to a changing environment, for more cross-fertilization between various social sciences as well as other areas of study, e.t.c.) were oddly concerning. I say that, because the book is written as though these suggestions are revolutionary and somewhat contraversial among economists, when they seem like obvious priorities to me. The book started off quite defensive describing criticisms of economics as a study as straw-man arguments that didn't really account for what economists actually do and how they work. That whole segment itself struck me as somewhat straw-man in construction, because while I've heard (and made) criticisms like the ones listed about specific economic policies, or particular writers, I've never known anyone to offer such criticisms of the entire profession. I didn't think there was much debate over the point or existence of economics as a field in the wider world, but over the methods used and conclusions drawn. Having read this book, I'm far more convinced that concerns over how economists work are legitimate than I ever was. This book suggests that there are vast areas of common practice, which economists know are wrong, or inaccurate, or give entirely incomplete pictures, which are then still used to generate policy advice. Similarly there is a apparently a collective blindness about the impossibility of completely objective judgement in these situations. If this is an accurate portrayal of the the industry, economists seem to be happily passing judgements they claim (and even believe) are objective, as they flatly refuse to acknowledge that by virtue of being part of the economy they're studying and changing, they automatically have a vested interest. All of that is particularly strange, as many of the models they use or have used in the past have been based on the idea that people act with rational self interest. So, somehow, economists seem to be convinced that while all other humans act with rational self interest, they themselves do not. If this is a reliable portrait of the how a majority of economists operate, it's a bit terrifying.
November 15, 2024
Cogs and Monsters: Economists Must Try Harder
The book opens with Coyle introducing some of the basic criticisms of the field of economics. She starts by discussing the widely discussed issue of the lack of diversity in the field, questioning whether the idea of utility is useful, and highlights the obvious limitations of Economics as a theoretical science due to the occurrence of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008. She also refers to her early work on curriculum reform in taught Economics at undergraduate level and her contribution to Curriculum Open access Resources in Economics (CORE).
One of the limitations of the book is her overemphasis on the idea of performativity – that is the question of how can economists analyse a world in which they are a part of and the policies which they themselves have helped to form. As interesting a concept as this is, she could have dedicated one chapter to it rather that repeating the theory multiple times across chapters.
Furthermore, a solution is not provided to the idea of performativity – she could have suggested the introduction of a new branch of economics or that econometrists be somehow separated from their micro- and macroeconomic counterparts. Fortunately though, she does build on the work of MacKenzie (2007), by illustrating the effect of performativity on the US stock market which provides a fascinating insight into how limitations of the subject can have real-world implications on the economy – in this case creating a $1,200 trillion investment market which flourished due to deregulation. The above example and other case studies mentioned in the book imply that the author is a Free Market economist.
However, she argues that technology does need regulation if used to enable high frequency trading in the stock market alluding to the flash crash of May 2010, and the GameStop crash of 2021 as examples to support this point. She also argues that options trading does not have a trickle down effect, both of these arguments form the Keynesian school of thought.
In a later chapter, Coyle expresses the widely held belief the Global Financial Crisis was caused by corporate greed, banks, think tanks with lobbying power, credit rating agencies and therefore not due to the failure of economists or markets. This is unsurprising as Coyle would describe herself as an economist and therefore this view is very subjective.
Coyle contends that economists, and journals which compile their published works, themselves need checks and balances and illustrates that after the GFC, many thinktanks emerged in order to fulfil this role.
Whilst it could be argued that the rise of populism resulted in a majority vote for the Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, Coyle offers a different perspective, suggesting that Brexit shows that Economists must communicate more effectively with laypeople so that they can make informed decisions which would benefit their country’s economy as a whole.
The author also discusses how capitalism does not serve parts of our society. She lists the effects this type of economic system has had in the 21st century: deepening inequality, creating unemployment and job insecurity, and austerity, however she does not provide up to date examples (such as part-time workers employed on zero-hour contracts in the modern-day gig economy), focusing mainly on the crash of 2008. (Of course I wrote this before the government reforms on the 21st of October)
In the section of the book where the author discusses the effect of technological advancements over the past decade and their effect on trade, she argues that there is no effective market for data. I believe this is disproved by existence of companies such as Cambridge Analytica and the entire digital advertising sector. However, as she has been brief in arguing this, due to the fact that she rightly does not want to repeat ideas included in one of her earlier works, I cannot critique this further.
She also argues that modern-day markets are far too complex for artificial intelligence to be able to replace applied economists in the near future – but as she doesn’t have a background in computer science and has not referenced any large-scale studies to back this argument, I believe the author has underexplored this topic. Furthermore, as the work was published in 2021, it would be interesting to read other works on how the socialist calculation debate has developed.
I agree with Coyle’s idea that raw data used by economists should be scrutinized not only by analysing what the data say about the economy, but in how they were collected, and that the emergence of new techniques should be treated with caution and the tenet that correlation does not equal causation should always be upheld.
The author ends the explorative essay on an optimistic note, by arguing that the COVID-19 Pandemic shows economists do have the capability of working together to improve the welfare of the general public after all, which rounds the book out as a fair critique of the discipline which has its limitations like any other.
The book opens with Coyle introducing some of the basic criticisms of the field of economics. She starts by discussing the widely discussed issue of the lack of diversity in the field, questioning whether the idea of utility is useful, and highlights the obvious limitations of Economics as a theoretical science due to the occurrence of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008. She also refers to her early work on curriculum reform in taught Economics at undergraduate level and her contribution to Curriculum Open access Resources in Economics (CORE).
One of the limitations of the book is her overemphasis on the idea of performativity – that is the question of how can economists analyse a world in which they are a part of and the policies which they themselves have helped to form. As interesting a concept as this is, she could have dedicated one chapter to it rather that repeating the theory multiple times across chapters.
Furthermore, a solution is not provided to the idea of performativity – she could have suggested the introduction of a new branch of economics or that econometrists be somehow separated from their micro- and macroeconomic counterparts. Fortunately though, she does build on the work of MacKenzie (2007), by illustrating the effect of performativity on the US stock market which provides a fascinating insight into how limitations of the subject can have real-world implications on the economy – in this case creating a $1,200 trillion investment market which flourished due to deregulation. The above example and other case studies mentioned in the book imply that the author is a Free Market economist.
However, she argues that technology does need regulation if used to enable high frequency trading in the stock market alluding to the flash crash of May 2010, and the GameStop crash of 2021 as examples to support this point. She also argues that options trading does not have a trickle down effect, both of these arguments form the Keynesian school of thought.
In a later chapter, Coyle expresses the widely held belief the Global Financial Crisis was caused by corporate greed, banks, think tanks with lobbying power, credit rating agencies and therefore not due to the failure of economists or markets. This is unsurprising as Coyle would describe herself as an economist and therefore this view is very subjective.
Coyle contends that economists, and journals which compile their published works, themselves need checks and balances and illustrates that after the GFC, many thinktanks emerged in order to fulfil this role.
Whilst it could be argued that the rise of populism resulted in a majority vote for the Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, Coyle offers a different perspective, suggesting that Brexit shows that Economists must communicate more effectively with laypeople so that they can make informed decisions which would benefit their country’s economy as a whole.
The author also discusses how capitalism does not serve parts of our society. She lists the effects this type of economic system has had in the 21st century: deepening inequality, creating unemployment and job insecurity, and austerity, however she does not provide up to date examples (such as part-time workers employed on zero-hour contracts in the modern-day gig economy), focusing mainly on the crash of 2008. (Of course I wrote this before the government reforms on the 21st of October)
In the section of the book where the author discusses the effect of technological advancements over the past decade and their effect on trade, she argues that there is no effective market for data. I believe this is disproved by existence of companies such as Cambridge Analytica and the entire digital advertising sector. However, as she has been brief in arguing this, due to the fact that she rightly does not want to repeat ideas included in one of her earlier works, I cannot critique this further.
She also argues that modern-day markets are far too complex for artificial intelligence to be able to replace applied economists in the near future – but as she doesn’t have a background in computer science and has not referenced any large-scale studies to back this argument, I believe the author has underexplored this topic. Furthermore, as the work was published in 2021, it would be interesting to read other works on how the socialist calculation debate has developed.
I agree with Coyle’s idea that raw data used by economists should be scrutinized not only by analysing what the data say about the economy, but in how they were collected, and that the emergence of new techniques should be treated with caution and the tenet that correlation does not equal causation should always be upheld.
The author ends the explorative essay on an optimistic note, by arguing that the COVID-19 Pandemic shows economists do have the capability of working together to improve the welfare of the general public after all, which rounds the book out as a fair critique of the discipline which has its limitations like any other.
January 13, 2022
(3.5)
There's a lot to admire about this book - most importantly, it's meticulously researched. Coyle draws from an extensive body of research, citing a range of scholars on a variety of topics. In doing so, she emerges as a very valuable interlocutor and her diverse experiences (in government and academia) enable her to speak different languages and approach the topic from varied perspectives. Coyle does a great job of dismissing popular - but strawmen - criticisms of the discipline, while pointing to some of the real challenges Economics currently faces. The first chapter of the book is magnificent.
What didn't work for me however, was the structure and organization of the book. The chapters draw from speeches Coyle has made, but unfortunately, this doesn't translate as well into a book. There are many arguments that are repeated over the book, but without going into much detail. I do think restructuring this by sub-themes would have enabled her to make her claims in a more cohesive and effective manner. On a substantive level, I found two gaps in the author's arguments:
1) there is little research into or engagement with other disciplines. There's an implicit belief in the primacy of Economics (which she appears to attribute to its use of statistics and understanding of causal logic), but it would have been helpful to understand how the methodologies of disciplines like political science, sociology, history, and anthropology address public policy challenges.
2) Coyle's defense of Economics in many cases is "but see how much the field has changed" - to this end, it would have been useful to dive into the shapers of the discipline. What enables the evolution of Economic thoughts or the values core to the discipline? What are the power structures (Economics in the US versus elsewhere, the West vs. the East, etc.) and how do they influence how the field evolves? What has precipitated changes in the field and why? Is Economics as a field reactive or can it shape how public policy evolves?
Finally, while Coyle's initial chapters do an incredible job exploring the challenges with the field, her final chapters are less conclusive. She has many questions about what the field isn't addressing, but the directives she provides are somewhat handwavy.
Regardless, this is remarkable book about the discipline (a genre with inherent challenges and constraints) and one that most practitioner economists and public policy analysts would benefit from reading.
There's a lot to admire about this book - most importantly, it's meticulously researched. Coyle draws from an extensive body of research, citing a range of scholars on a variety of topics. In doing so, she emerges as a very valuable interlocutor and her diverse experiences (in government and academia) enable her to speak different languages and approach the topic from varied perspectives. Coyle does a great job of dismissing popular - but strawmen - criticisms of the discipline, while pointing to some of the real challenges Economics currently faces. The first chapter of the book is magnificent.
What didn't work for me however, was the structure and organization of the book. The chapters draw from speeches Coyle has made, but unfortunately, this doesn't translate as well into a book. There are many arguments that are repeated over the book, but without going into much detail. I do think restructuring this by sub-themes would have enabled her to make her claims in a more cohesive and effective manner. On a substantive level, I found two gaps in the author's arguments:
1) there is little research into or engagement with other disciplines. There's an implicit belief in the primacy of Economics (which she appears to attribute to its use of statistics and understanding of causal logic), but it would have been helpful to understand how the methodologies of disciplines like political science, sociology, history, and anthropology address public policy challenges.
2) Coyle's defense of Economics in many cases is "but see how much the field has changed" - to this end, it would have been useful to dive into the shapers of the discipline. What enables the evolution of Economic thoughts or the values core to the discipline? What are the power structures (Economics in the US versus elsewhere, the West vs. the East, etc.) and how do they influence how the field evolves? What has precipitated changes in the field and why? Is Economics as a field reactive or can it shape how public policy evolves?
Finally, while Coyle's initial chapters do an incredible job exploring the challenges with the field, her final chapters are less conclusive. She has many questions about what the field isn't addressing, but the directives she provides are somewhat handwavy.
Regardless, this is remarkable book about the discipline (a genre with inherent challenges and constraints) and one that most practitioner economists and public policy analysts would benefit from reading.
February 12, 2024
Cogs and Monsters - What Economics is, and What it should be
by
Diane Coyle
The world has changed dramatically in the past decades and continues to take long strides into an unprecedented era of rapid progress. At the same time according to Diane Coyle, economic theory and economists haven‘t quite been keeping up.
In “Cogs and Monsters” Coyle shares her insights into the present failings of economics, but also the immense potential for good and the responsibility that she feels should come with it.
Many of the metrics measured and assumptions made for simplicity’s sake are simply no longer true or at the very least, we now have better ways of assessing economic phenomena. Despite this rather humbling fact, the general public is confronted with a level of confidence in advocacy of certain policies that exceed the robustness of the evidence on which these claims are based. Also economy and policy change society, which in turn changes economy and political context. Too often, so Coyle, do economists see themselves outside of society, removed from the subject they are studying and implementing changes to, when they, in fact, are not. And perhaps due to this feeling of distance, there is less accountability for economists, despite the responsibilities they do and should bear for their involvement in policy making.
Markets alone cannot solve all our problems, but neither can centrally controlled economic planning. Out of the many things that we should be weary of, Coyle warns of policy economics that claims to make changes for the better. But she asks: What does better mean and better for whom?
Concerning digitalization, there is much uncertainty, because the changes are so far reaching and complex, many aspects being difficult to measure, but very clearly having a big impact on business, economy at large and also at the individual level. Political institutions are slowly reacting to the host of unforeseen problems and a wholly new frontier of challenges that have emerged directly or indirectly because of digitalization.
by
Diane Coyle
The world has changed dramatically in the past decades and continues to take long strides into an unprecedented era of rapid progress. At the same time according to Diane Coyle, economic theory and economists haven‘t quite been keeping up.
In “Cogs and Monsters” Coyle shares her insights into the present failings of economics, but also the immense potential for good and the responsibility that she feels should come with it.
Many of the metrics measured and assumptions made for simplicity’s sake are simply no longer true or at the very least, we now have better ways of assessing economic phenomena. Despite this rather humbling fact, the general public is confronted with a level of confidence in advocacy of certain policies that exceed the robustness of the evidence on which these claims are based. Also economy and policy change society, which in turn changes economy and political context. Too often, so Coyle, do economists see themselves outside of society, removed from the subject they are studying and implementing changes to, when they, in fact, are not. And perhaps due to this feeling of distance, there is less accountability for economists, despite the responsibilities they do and should bear for their involvement in policy making.
Markets alone cannot solve all our problems, but neither can centrally controlled economic planning. Out of the many things that we should be weary of, Coyle warns of policy economics that claims to make changes for the better. But she asks: What does better mean and better for whom?
Concerning digitalization, there is much uncertainty, because the changes are so far reaching and complex, many aspects being difficult to measure, but very clearly having a big impact on business, economy at large and also at the individual level. Political institutions are slowly reacting to the host of unforeseen problems and a wholly new frontier of challenges that have emerged directly or indirectly because of digitalization.
January 25, 2024
Dianne Coyle's "Cogs and Monsters" offers an interesting layout of some of the developments on economics as a field, and argues for the expectation of change given these events. The writing tends to be a bit haphazard in organization, but otherwise reads well.
Coyle reaches across varied points to suggest that there are fundamental changes happening in how economics as a field engages with society, and on the importance of such engagement happening in an ethical way. The inclusion of the measurability questions, of a more realistic incorporation of digital economics, and the overall idea of how important narratives are reads well.
The chief weakness in the book, which knocks it heavily down from a 5 star rating, is the relatively surface level exploration of these concepts. The initial expression of the book seems to be to a bit of a generalist audience, but the content is more aligned to a proactive participant in economics - either from the field or its close engages, which makes the choice of depth a bit strange.
A useful book to read, in that it lays out and structures some important points, but the lack of depth seriously subtracts from a book that could have been far more influential.
Coyle reaches across varied points to suggest that there are fundamental changes happening in how economics as a field engages with society, and on the importance of such engagement happening in an ethical way. The inclusion of the measurability questions, of a more realistic incorporation of digital economics, and the overall idea of how important narratives are reads well.
The chief weakness in the book, which knocks it heavily down from a 5 star rating, is the relatively surface level exploration of these concepts. The initial expression of the book seems to be to a bit of a generalist audience, but the content is more aligned to a proactive participant in economics - either from the field or its close engages, which makes the choice of depth a bit strange.
A useful book to read, in that it lays out and structures some important points, but the lack of depth seriously subtracts from a book that could have been far more influential.
September 19, 2024
Look I swear I’ll get round to reading something that’s not economics related at some point. I got sent this in the post and it just so happens to be pretty good.
It scratched a niche itch of mine. A bugbear. You see there are plenty of really big, important, valid criticisms of economics. However, what’s really frustrating is that none of these are the criticisms that are actually made of economics in the public sphere. More than this, the criticisms you do tend to hear are all a bit rubbish. For example, “people aren’t actually rational though” which is my personal favourite.
It’s because of this disconnect that this book is so refreshing. It identifies all the things economics is good at and then doesn’t mince words about its “even better ifs”. In all honesty there was very little I disagreed with. More could probably have been said on some of the dubious stuff macroeconomists get up to but other than that a serious and honest assessment of the discipline and how it needs to change.
Only issue is that it probably verges a bit too much on the technical side, so its appeal is sadly limited to sickos like me.
It scratched a niche itch of mine. A bugbear. You see there are plenty of really big, important, valid criticisms of economics. However, what’s really frustrating is that none of these are the criticisms that are actually made of economics in the public sphere. More than this, the criticisms you do tend to hear are all a bit rubbish. For example, “people aren’t actually rational though” which is my personal favourite.
It’s because of this disconnect that this book is so refreshing. It identifies all the things economics is good at and then doesn’t mince words about its “even better ifs”. In all honesty there was very little I disagreed with. More could probably have been said on some of the dubious stuff macroeconomists get up to but other than that a serious and honest assessment of the discipline and how it needs to change.
Only issue is that it probably verges a bit too much on the technical side, so its appeal is sadly limited to sickos like me.
January 31, 2023
As someone who has been a practising economist in government, I found the book provides a good summary of the state of economics today.
I agree with Diane Coyle that while theoretical models are necessary, they have their limitiations. A full consideration of economic issues often requires lookning at factors that cannot easily modeled or expressed mathematically.
On the problems of measurement and the digital economy, Diane Coyle reiterates some of the points she previously made in her book on GDP.
I also enjoyed her discussion on welfare economics and cost-benefit analysis, an area where economists' analysis has often limited or distorted by the utility maximiazation framwork.
I agree with Diane Coyle that while theoretical models are necessary, they have their limitiations. A full consideration of economic issues often requires lookning at factors that cannot easily modeled or expressed mathematically.
On the problems of measurement and the digital economy, Diane Coyle reiterates some of the points she previously made in her book on GDP.
I also enjoyed her discussion on welfare economics and cost-benefit analysis, an area where economists' analysis has often limited or distorted by the utility maximiazation framwork.
February 17, 2022
Soy especialista en economía, y tal vez por estar tan familiarizado con la discusión de hacia dónde debe ir su estudio siento que el libro me ha dejado muy poco. No leí cosas nuevas a lo que se ha venido discutiendo en los últimos años, y también sentí que le faltaba un poco de estructura al libro. Si bien las discusiones de las fallas y las oportunidades sobre el estudio de la economía son relevantes e importantes, alguien con conocimiento de estas discusiones no se beneficiará de la lectura de este libro. El libro es más para alguien que quiera saber cuáles son esas discusiones.
January 6, 2022
Diane Cole is obviously knowledgeable in this field. It wasn’t a difficult read but I couldn’t identify a unifying theme to tie all her ideas together. Maybe it’s just me being thick. I enjoy economic history and I just found other books by Bob Reich, Stephanie Kelton, Peter Temin, Michael Pettis, Randall Wray, Kate Raworth, Mazzucato were much easier to grasp.
March 3, 2022
The first thing I have to say is that this is a great idea for a book, super potential for a narrative and some interesting insights and maybe exploration of recent examples. However, the final product is bereft of much insight and certainly pulls its punches anywhere it approaches an insight. A real shame as it could have been so much better.
October 12, 2024
the latter half of this was excellent!!! but man oh man was it a slog to read. as someone who knows not that much about economics i was a little lost in some areas but really great content and conclusions towards the end. i really appreciated some of the metaphors that were sprinkled in throughout.
March 9, 2022
This book is a critique of economics in its traditional sense. Rightfully so for the current economic environment which is predominantly influenced by digital technology requires looking at it from a different lens. This is a must-read for economists and those in regulatory fields.
April 21, 2024
主流经济学仍然假设人们是“齿轮”——自利的、精打细算的、在特定环境中相互作用的独立主体，但数字经济更像是“怪物”――不受束缚、滚雪球一般发展壮大并受社会影响的未知因素。在经济学中，事情的发展永远不会像人们期望的那样，否则，世界将是一个可预测、可管理的地方。
在本书中，作者提出了一些问题：我们是否需要以新的方式来衡量增长和进步？经济学能否保持客观？毕竟它影响了它所分析的事物。本书对此充满了独到的见解，为经济学更好地适应包括数字技术在内的社会因素变化，在数字经济时代发挥巨大积极作用提供了路线图。
在本书中，作者提出了一些问题：我们是否需要以新的方式来衡量增长和进步？经济学能否保持客观？毕竟它影响了它所分析的事物。本书对此充满了独到的见解，为经济学更好地适应包括数字技术在内的社会因素变化，在数字经济时代发挥巨大积极作用提供了路线图。
February 28, 2025
I picked this up because of the (rare) method/meta focus; but Coyle (of which I had a good opinion) is embarrassingly vapid and derivative here.
The book is an haphazard collection of essays which cohere in their confused nature, thinness, repetitiveness, and lack of a discernible thesis.
The book is an haphazard collection of essays which cohere in their confused nature, thinness, repetitiveness, and lack of a discernible thesis.
December 28, 2021
All economists and non-economists enraged with economics should read this book.
Read
February 9, 2022I'm skeptic about economic ontology and the absence of paradigm shift in economic studies. I'm not impressed.
December 15, 2022
Diane Coyle along with Tim Jackson and Kate Raworth are helping us see a new way forward for our economies. I greatly enjoyed Cogs and Monsters and recommend the book to all my friends.
August 24, 2023
Diana Coyle denuncia muchos de los problemas de la economía como ciencia. No obstante, es un poco aburrido....
December 11, 2023
Disappointing, nothing new, and written in a fairly dry academic style.
January 20, 2025
The first 100 pages should have been 10. Once she moves on to digital markets and platform economics, it's electric; the halves are like two different books. I wish she'd dug deeper into those digital dynamics and that she drew more on fieldwork.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews