What Harry Potter Can (and Can't) Teach Us About Economics
hubie writes:
What Harry Potter can (and can't) teach us about economics:
A new paper in Oxford Open Economics, published by Oxford University Press, explores "Potterian economics"-the economics of the world of J.K. Rawling's Harry Potter series. Comparing such economics with professional economic models indicates that while some aspects of this economy are in line with economic models, many other aspects are distorted, contradicting professional economists' views.
Evidence suggests that the public's economic literacy is low and that it acquires much of the knowledge about economics through books, newspapers, etc. There is also evidence that literature affects readers, shaping their views. It is, therefore, possible that the 7-book series may exert influence and reflect on the public's economic perspectives and sentiments. A conservative estimate suggests that more than 7.3% of the world's population has read the Potter books and millions more have seen their movie versions. Given such extraordinary popularity of the books, their effect on the economic sentiments of the public might be considerable.
[...] "A naive reader of Harry Potter would get a distorted view of economics," said Daniel Levy, one of the paper's authors. "Consider some of the lessons we learn from Potterian economics: markets are not fair for transactions are zero sum; the political process is not transparent; markets encourage crony capitalism; capitalists want to enslave the proletariat; businessmen are deceptive and devious; wealthy people are mean and unethical; no interest is paid on deposits; there is a monopoly on information; power is concentrated; ignorance about foreigners is the norm; domestic producers are protected from foreign competition even if they are inefficient; paper checks are non-existent; creative thinking is rare; human capital does not accumulate; public employees have life-time job-security irrespective of their efficiency; the public sector is the default employer; downward social mobility is the norm; there is a constant class struggle. This is only a partial list."
"The shortcomings listed above characterize many real economies," Levy continued. "This perhaps explains why the Potterian economic model resonates with people. Despite its inaccuracies, it is consistent with folk economics, which while perhaps problematic for human flourishing in a Smithian sense, captures and reflects popular views on many economic and social issues."
Journal Reference:
Daniel Levy and Avichai Snir, Potterian economics [open], Oxford Open Economics, 1, 2022. DOI: 10.1093/ooec/odac004
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.