Apparently, The Economist magazine doesn’t think a survey of economists by Dilbert creator Scott Adams is sufficient, so they’ve done their own.
Via e-mail, The Economist contacted all the economists in the National Bureau of Economic Research (N.B.E.R.) — a sample that would include just about every top economist in the United States — and 142 economists responded (I was one of the 142, but the questions got hard halfway through and I had to choose “don’t know/no opinion” most of the rest of the way).
The results were striking.
Remarkably, only about 10 percent of these economists self-identify as Republicans. Nearly half of economists called themselves Democrats; the rest were undeclared. Since when did economists get so liberal? I clearly have been hanging around the University of Chicago too long.
The good news for my friend Austan Goolsbee, who has been a leading figure in the Obama campaign, is that 80 percent of the economists polled think Obama would pick a better economic team. Even the Republicans polled think Obama has a better grasp of economics than McCain.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Bobby G, you seem to be under the impression that republicans won’t increase public spending.
Economists who are liberal are likely sucking at the government teat, either directly via salary at a state university or through government grant funding. More tax dollars = job security
My guess is that the correlation between being an economist while also a democrat would be better explained by the level of education than the specific field of study. I heard somewhere that PhD’s are democrats these days. I don’t know where; I’m too busy watching NASCAR, dropping out of high school and voting republican.
@Bobby G #1
“It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain.”
From the economist article you just read.
In response to Bobby G:
Dude, what are you talking about? Government IS taxpayers spending on social programs. When exactly do taxpayers spend money on social programs “themselves”? Do you mean donating money to local after-school programs or the Scouts and such?
People need to stop talking about the government as if it is some sort of alien entity; in democracies, you ARE the government, and if there’s something you hate about it, you need to look inwards to yourselves. Stop repeating the BS Reagan mantra that government is the problem.
Bobby G makes a big assumption. Truth is both parties increase government spending.
Perhaps also economists are realists and realize that efficiency must come second to values. For example, it doesn’t matter how efficient privatized healthcare is if people remain without healthcare.
In response to BobbyG:
It certainly is bizarre that so many people would still cling to the belief that the private sector is more capable of handling public services than a competently-run government.
One of the first things I was taught in my economics 101 class was the concept of market failures: situations in which the private sector is inherently worse at providing a good or service than the government. In fact, such market failures are arguably the reason why we have governments in the first place.)
If the Bush Administration’s relentless privatization of government services has demonstrated anyting, it is that there are in fact a great many social programs and personal needs which the government is fundamentally better at providing than private companies- provided the government is not being sabotaged by anti-regulation lobbyists.
I wonder if it fits based on where they are employed? Does one study economics for the love, or because they would like to work where economists work? I’d think the two major employers would be the US/State Gov, and Universities – traditionally houses of the left. Perhaps right leaning “economists” are actually in finance, and in private practice?