Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Steve Levitt's "Freakonomics" has made the economics of everyday life a trendy subject for readers and very lucrative for economists. Tim Harford has caught the wave with his own "The Undercover Economist." However, "The Undercover Economist" is far better. "The Undercover Economist" does an excellent job at explaining much of economics theory through the simple experiences of everyday consumers. We all buy coffee, go to the supermarket, buy airline tickets, buy used cars, and buy or rent housing. He explains the underlying economic forces that apply to our everyday purchasing choices by relying on his extensive background in macro and microeconomics, but also Game Theory, and Behavioral Economics. As a result, he educates the reader in a broad based knowledge of economics ranging from the basic (macro economics) to the cutting edge (Game Theory). "Freakonomics" deals with obtuse subjects that have nothing to do with consumers' everyday lives. When is the last time you were concerned with Sumo wrestlers or Chicago High School teachers cheating, or whether abortion in the 70s influenced the crime rate in NY City in the 90s. These events have nothing to do with economics but rather regression analysis. Levitt, unlike Harford, never covers basic economic topics like demand, supply, and price elasticity just to name a few. Harford does an excellent job of tying microeconomic events to the World economy. Your buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks boosts Brazilian coffee exports to the U.S., which affects the U.S. current account deficit that impacts the U.S. demand for foreign capital that may affect interest rate levels and future economic growth. Meanwhile, by focusing on Sumo wrestlers cheating Levitt can't readily explain the Japanese trade surplus. Thus, Levitt boxes himself in a corner with nowhere to go. Harford is a better writer. He is a well-established British FT columnist. Levitt can't write for the general public. So, he hired himself a co-author, Stephen Dubner, to put prose to paper. This strategy worked only up to a point, as Dubner wasted much ink on adulating Levitt. As a result, "Freakonomics" comes across as a PR campaign for Levitt. There is none of that self-adulating distraction in Harford's book. Harford gives credit where credit is due. Levitt truly believes he invented a new science "Freakonomics" or the economics of everyday life. But the subject is as old as economics itself as Adam Smith in his 18th century writings always referred to everyday common transactions between local merchants and consumers. Levitt just invented a meaningless word that turned out to be lucrative. Harford often acknowledges his predecessors (from Adam Smith to Steven Landsburg) and does not claim to have invented a new science. He just intends to educate while he entertains. Harford has been successful on both counts. Levitt has not. I recommend several other good books on this subject. These include: David Friedman's "Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life", Gary Becker's "The Economics of Life", and Steve Landsburg's "The Armchair Economist."