How We Contradict Ourselves: The Case of John Cochrane—Gliding and Behavioral Economics

What is it about?

John Cochrane, a leading economist, has consistently expressed a skeptical view toward behavioral economics and libertarian-paternalism. Specifically, he has consistently voiced his disagreement with the premise of “protecting” people from their own choices. However, in his hobby of piloting gliders, he has strongly argued that pilots will make behavioral errors. Indeed, he notes that pilots can be tempted to make unsafe decisions and has argued for specific rules to help prevent pilot error. In this article, we examine this contradiction. In doing so, it provides an interesting case study of how our beliefs in one system can be quite different in another.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Cochrane’s lack of consistency when it comes to regulatory policy in gliding and in economics reflect further, far-reaching consequences for policymakers. Cognitive dissonance within thought-leaders shows that policymaking is not generally so simple that it can be boiled down to idealistic views. The actions of the many economists, academics, and scholars that show lack of consistency in their own views further reflect the difficulty of implementing policy based on axioms or optimal models of human behavior.