I once sat on the honors orals of an economics major who had applied a standard mathematical model to immigration. The mathematics and data collection were well done, but the thesis was premised on the assumption we can understand immigration by analyzing a sufficiently large sample of economic data with a reputable mathematical model. Were there other factors in immigration besides economic ones? I asked. The question drew a bemused look from both student and faculty mentor. The short answer was, “Theoretically, perhaps, in random and statistically insignificant cases.” I mentioned the Pilgrims as a counterexample, but to them the Pilgrims were a prime example of “statistically insignificant.”
The dominance of economics is a fact of life today. For some that is a good thing. An editorial writer for the old Rocky Mountain News told me that politics was a bad way to settle public issues; economics was a better one. This vision, sometimes called economic reductionism or economism, unites free marketers and Marxists, although the Marxists I know dislike being called economic reductionists. They call it “vulgar Marxism.” I once mentioned this to a free marketer in the economics department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where I teach, who responded with a wide grin and the comment, “Well, I guess that makes me...