On “Freakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner ****

I saw the film probably fifteen years ago. I was expecting, as such, the book to have a lot more than the film did, but I'm not sure that it did. My memory isn't that fresh, obviously, but many of the same stories show up in this book and don't seem told in particularly deeper ways. As such, this book was a little bit of a disappointment. In fact, as becomes obvious after reading the appendixes, the book is built upon a series of scholarly articles written by Levitt that were dumbed down for a popular audience by Dubner. One could say that each chapter is like one of those articles, rewritten for a popular audience (and gladly so, as is obvious from one blog post included in the appendix that is laden with tables and econ speak).

Still, Levitt has an interesting way at looking at the world and applying econ to it, and Dubner has a way with making that all accessible to noneconomists. As such, this book is really interesting, even if the movie seems to have actually been about as thorough as the book. Among the findings: Some teachers cheat for their students on standardized tests. We can tell because the same questions are often answered right and wrong by large swaths of a class that deviate from the general population. Some sumo wrestlers likewise “throw” contests toward the end of the season, since as with British soccer, a sumo wrestler on the edge could, with a loss, drop to a lower level. Suddenly, toward seasons end, some matches that should be givens end up being the other way around in terms of wins. Real estate agents are likely not to work as hard to make their customers an extra ten thousand dollars as we ourselves might be, because in the end, that ten thousand is only one-fifty to the agent. We can tell because agents tend to take a week longer to sell their own houses and make the extra money. Drug dealers, unless they are at the top of the pecking order, make less than minimum wage. Why bother? Because, as with aspiring actors and other hopefuls, the lower drug dealers hope/think they'll make it big one day. Why did crime go down in the 1990s and thereafter? Abortion was leglized in the 1970s, resulting in fewer unwanted children. Unwanted children, apparently, means crime. Such would suggest that parenting makes a great difference in a child's life, but the next chapter discounts that: apparently, parents don't really affect what children become much at all. What's more important is genetics. Educated, well-off, socially involved, older parents end up with more successful kids than those who spank or who live in a better neighborhood or are interested in the arts. Finally, names can help with people getting interviews (we're less likely to call back someone with a supposed “Black” name than a “white” name), but in the long term may not affect one's overall success. Name popularity moves from the high class to the low.

The edition I read ended with three appendixes: one with the article that inspired the book, one with various newspaper articles in response to the book; and one with various blog entries. Some of these were enlightening to the topics covered in the book, while others seemed like tangential material being used as an excuse to produce a new edition. In that sense, the book is not unlike the podcast, which for me seems hit and miss. Sometimes there are some real though-provoking gems, and other times, it just seems like someone is trying to fill radio time.