Expert Failure (Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society)

I read this book early in my graduate school career and it strongly impacted the way I see the world. The author's core approach draws on Austrian economics and public choice theory to understand the epistemic and incentive problems that can shape expert opinion. In addition to this economic core, he combines insights from numerous other disciplines. For instance, he leverages the work of Michel Foucault in a way that I haven't seen from any other economists.Koppl does not reject the usefulness or necessity of expertise. Indeed, he acknowledges that the division of labor inevitably gives rise to a division of knowledge, and that this can allow us to do amazing things. But he also recognizes that experts are fallible, learn within an institutional context, and have interests of their own. This means that they can cause harm under some conditions, particularly those where they have monopolies, are heavily siloed within a narrow discipline, or have the power to impose their advice on others.While Koppl makes some abstract arguments, he applies them to a range of concrete cases. These cases are immensely important. Koppl explains some of the problems that gave rise to great horrors of the past and present, including eugenics, abusive use of forensic science to convict innocent people, and America's violent and illiberal national security state.

These days we're told to believe in science and trust in experts. But scientists will be the first to tell you that "I believe in science" is a self-contradictory statement. Science is not closed, and experts are not free-floating objective entities that stand outside their societies and their political and cultural institutions. Roger Koppl takes you through an historic and scientific journey, from Mandeville through the very frontiers of complexity science, through ethics and economics and epistemology, to answer the question, "Should we trust the experts?"The resultant book is a fun and intelligent read, a bit more challenging than your typical layperson book, but then again, Koppl is more about leading you through the history, theory and research than telling you what you should believe. This book has already shaped policy debates, and it will certainly continue to do so.

Although I tend to agree with the author's conclusions, this is a poor written, tedious, and thoroughly unpleasant book to wade through. The constant repetition and restatement, the stunted and clunky prose, and the endless citations strip it of any incentive for a reader to continue. The goal, I think, is academic precision. Whether that goal was achieved I not only don't know but don't care. Unless you're into self-abuse skip this one.

Koppl's book is an important contribution to economics and political economy. Although it was published in 2018, Koppl anticipates many of the problems that arose during this pandemic and fundamental underlying causes. This book has inspired me and has generated several academic and popular contributions from me.Koppl also has written a book that takes a complicated subject and makes it easy to approach and understand. This book will be enjoyed both by the academic and the non-academic.

“In 2009 two judges in Pennsylvania pled guilty to fraud and tax charges in a scheme to imprison children for money. The case was dubbed “kids for cash.”Wha . . . wha . . . what?“These two judges were experts. They were experts in the law giving their opinions of the guilt or innocence of children coming before them and deciding what punishments were just. They took $2.6 million in “kickbacks” from two private detention centers to which they sent convicted juveniles. To get their kickbacks, they sent children to jail.’’This report opens the book. Sets the tone. Experts are deceitful, fallible, corrupt - sincere, insightful, wise. Just like everyone else!Why experts given so much status?“I review two important episodes in the history of the problem. ​​​​The first is the emergence of Socratic philosophy and its development with Plato, Aristotle, and the Academy. In this tradition, philosophers are experts. ​​​The second episode is a mostly nineteenth-century Anglo-American literature on expert witnesses in the law. I will argue that in both literatures the expert is often viewed as both epistemically [intellectually] and morally superior to non-experts. They should be obeyed. Such lionization of experts and expertise is common today as well and is, in my view, inappropriate and unfortunate.’’Oddly, the claim of ‘moral superiority’ is the significant step. Experts not just smarter, but, better. A distinction with a huge difference!Another key theme . . .“Consider serious examples of spontaneous order, including the division of labor. We should not think of the division of labor as driven, somehow, by a grand purpose. It embodies no unitary hierarchy of values. The division of labor has no purpose and serves no particular hierarchy of ends. It is, rather, the emergent and unplanned result of a variety of persons pursuing a variety of potentially inconsistent goals. We can get along, so many of us so well, precisely because we do not have to agree on values. Believers buy Bibles from atheists and the system bumps along tolerably well, all things considered.’’Misunderstanding of markets, the demand for clear unity of thought, rejection of division of labor, produces misery. Like Marx (others) explain, markets work — it just doesn’t feel right! We want something better!Another keen insight . . .“Poverty is about rights, not fertilizer. “The technocratic illusion is that poverty results from a shortage of expertise, whereas poverty is really about a shortage of rights”Wow!The ‘rule of law’ receives attention . . . What is this?““It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and ​excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government”. Mises invoked the rule of law when contrasting hegemonic and contractual bonds in society. “In the hegemonic state there is neither right nor law; there are only directives and regulations which the director may change daily and apply with what discrimination he pleases and which the wards must obey”.Koppl writing in 2018. ‘Arbitrary use of authority’ by experts. This explanation needed now more than ever!Epistemology (study of knowledge) plays significant role in this drama . . .“Mises would say, “In the course of social events there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adjust his actions if he wishes to succeed.” The sovereign (whether literal monarch or a democratic electorate) knows that it cannot suspend the law of gravity by fiat. But the sovereign rarely understands that the laws of economics are just as binding and just as independent of human will. “One must study the laws of human action and social cooperation,” Mises averred, “as the physicist studies the laws of nature”.‘Laws of nature’ cannot be repealed by human legislators!Part 1 - Nature and History of the Problem2 - Is There a Literature on Experts?Defining “Expert”3 - Historical Episodes in the Problem of ExpertsThe Socratic TraditionExpert Witnesses in Law4 - Recurrent Themes in the Theory of ExpertsPower Ethics ReflexivityThe Well-Informed CitizenDemocratic Control of ExpertsInformation ChoicePart II - Foundation of the Theory of Experts5 - Spontaneous Order6 - The Division of Knowledge through Mandeville7 - Division of Knowledge after MandevilleVico to MarxMenger to HayekAfter HayekPart III- Information Choice Theory8 - Supply and Demand for Expert OpinionHonest Error and Willful FraudThe Economics of Experts Fills a Niche9 - Experts and Their EcologyMotivational Assumptions of Information Choice TheoryPart IV - Expert Failure10 - Two Dimensions of Expert FailureIdentity, Sympathy, Approbation, and PraiseworthinessObserver Effects, Bias, and Blinding11 - Further Sources of Expert FailureNormal Accidents of ExpertiseComplexity and FeedbackIncentive AlignmentMonopsony and Big PlayersEpistemic Systems Design12 - Expert Failure in the Entangled Deep StateHow important are ‘experts’ in current society, culture?“A body of experts may defend its monopoly with “intimidation, rational and irrational propaganda … mystification,” and “manipulation of prestige symbols”.Who can deny this now?“Physicians, manipulate prestige symbols, mystify, and propagandize on the power and mystery of ​modern medicine. The “general population is intimidated by images of the physical doom that follows” from rejecting a doctor’s advice. “To underline its authority the medical profession shrouds itself in … symbols of power and mystery, from outlandish costume to incomprehensible language.” Medical insiders are kept in – that is, kept from “quackery” – “not only by the powerful external controls available to the profession, but by a whole body of professional knowledge that offers them ‘scientific proof’ of the folly and even wickedness of deviance”.Not just ‘wrong’ to reject doctor, but, ‘wicked’! This is religious language — not scientific words!Where, when did this begin?“Plato famously calls for a philosopher-king. “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy … cities will never have rest from their evils.” And, he authorizes the few to tell a noble lie to the many. He proposes “just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city.” He thus places all epistemic authority in ​philosophy.’’‘One royal lie’! Well . . . why stop with one? Notice, Plato advises experts to lie to politicians. Who thinks intellectual history useless?Another fascinating insight . . .“Here again we find the aversion to competing experts and the corresponding desire to somehow prevent diversity of opinion from being expressed. And here again we see the role of the profession in attempts to prevent disagreements among experts. In one jurisdiction in England – Leeds – the professional aversion to disagreement seems to have influenced court procedure.’’Group think more important than truth.“In Leeds,” we are told, “the custom has, we believe, long obtained among the leaders of the profession to refuse to give expert evidence on any case until after a meeting of the experts on both sides; and this practice has worked so well that the Leeds Assizes are notable for the absence of these conflicts of scientific testimony which elsewhere has done so much to discredit such testimony in courts of law” If this report is accurate, it would seem that physicians and, perhaps, other experts ​succeeded in transforming the adversarial procedure in a manner that likely did less to promote truth and justice than testimonial unity.’’Experts want to produce status and admiration - not justice.Final chapter . . .“If my epistemics are about right, then the problem of experts mostly boils down to the question of knowledge imposition. Shall we impose a uniform body of knowledge on society? Imposing knowledge from above ​ensures expert failure, as illustrated by the failure of Soviet planning.’’History is real. Failure is always near.“The knowledge sustaining the division of labor in society is inherently synecological [progressive]. It is therefore not a matter of free choice whether social relations shall be governed by one unitary system of knowledge or by the undirected efforts of diverse persons, each guided by their own knowledge. Any attempt to impose a systematized body of knowledge on the system will fail, and social cooperation will be correspondingly thwarted. If we are to have sustainable social cooperation among vast numbers of strangers, social intercourse cannot be directed by an imposed system of knowledge, however “scientific” we may imagine such ​knowledge to be.’’Now this is profound. Ideas, control, direction imposed, given from ‘above’ is not, and can never be, ‘scientific’!Man-o-man! Recalls the Biblical proverb on Maxwell’s wall . . .“We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it.’’Maxwell overturned Newton!What conclusion offered?“Pure theory might seem to be “a priori” if we were perfect logicians, with only the application being “empirical.” But we are not perfect logicians. We do not know all of the implicit assumptions we make, and we are not always clear about the steps in our reasoning. Because human reason is fallible we need to test theory with history.’’Test ideas with facts. All set? No. Why?“But observation is fallible too. Because observation is fallible we need to test history with theory. In this disappointing situation, we cannot hope for falsifications or definitive tests beyond, perhaps, a few relatively rare instances. We have, instead, a dialogue between theory and history with no guarantee that we will always move closer to the truth.’’And this is where I’ve arrived. Neither theory alone or data alone is sufficient. The constant interaction between both is the only way to travel down the road to the land of ‘truth’. We’ll never arrive. We can move farther away from the field of ‘error’ and approach the garden of ‘truth’. But, we’ll never stop traveling. Is this good? Yes, this goal, this hope, this vision can inspire human life forever! What could be better?Koppl writing for serious reader. Probably fellow academics, policy wonks, intellectual leaders, etc., etc.. In fact, so many references, so much analysis of various scholars, profound thinkers and historical knowledge, it distracts from his explanations.Nevertheless, such comprehensive detail obviously included due to his counter-cultural rejection of the current technocracy, the administrative state, the scientific socialism of modernity.I skipped some of the more repetitive, detailed, academic argument. However, I learned a lot, was impressed with the research and deepened my understanding of current trends.Reveals the philosophical, intellectual, psychological ideas that are overwhelming modern thought.Recommended!Hundreds and hundreds of notes (linked)Many notes have links to the reference.Tremendous scholarship!Detailed index (linked)Great!No photographs

In Expert Failure, Roger Koppl seeks to develop a theory of experts and in particular expert failure. This leads him on to outline the circumstances under which expert failure is most like to occur which include when a central body has a monopoly on expertise/giving expert opinion, when there is a monopsonistic buyer of expert opinion, when there is no entry, rivaly or redundancy, when expert opinion involves decision making rather than giving advice, when experts have motives or face incentives that differ from being 'correct in their opinion, etc. The book starts by tracing the historiography of theories of knowledge and goes on to explain the economic basis (Public Choice Theory) that Koppl adapts for his purpose. This is certainly a book that requires a lot of concentration for the lay reader to understand even if you have a background in economic, political science and political philosophy. I found some of the arguments here to be slightly tangential and I did not quite understand the last chapter on the "Entangled Deep State". To be fair although this sounds very conspiracy theory oriented there is evidently an academic discussion that it slightly different to what that phrase implies. For readers who find themselves struggling with the book I would suggest the following (to get the main thrust of the author's arguments): read chapter 1 & 2 in full then skim chapter 3 (just get the main thrust of the points around Socrates/Plato and the second example, expert witnesses), skim through chapter 4-8 (if you have an economics background and/or are familar with Hayek that will help). Then read chapters 8-11. I would finish by skimming chapter 12 (the opening paragraph is worth reading as a summary of the whole theory).

The book makes you, as an expert, reflect about what you are coming as an expert, and gives many new insights.

An academic book and doesn’t get to the heart of the psychology behind failure