I'm very proud to be associated with this conference. I want to thank all the speakers and presenters, and especially all of you in the audience, for making this conference a success.
The Wisconsin Idea tells us that the University needs to be connected to real problems and issues faced by Wisconsinites as well as those beyond our physical borders, in the rest of the nation and indeed around the globe. It is our basic job description. As I look over the agenda I think we've put together a meeting that does meet the test of the Wisconsin Idea.
Two years ago we changed the name of our annual conference from the Wisconsin Housing Conference to the Wisconsin Real Estate and Economic Outlook Conference, to recognize the deep connections among housing, other kinds of real estate, and the economy in general.
Over the next few years, as Morris Davis provides the academic leadership for the Graaskamp Center and Mike Brennan leads our connection to the industry, I'll be spending part of my time to strengthen the focus of the Graaskamp Center on economic development.
Details will follow in the months ahead. Today I want to simply bring this effort, and indeed this conference, back to the touchstone of "sifting and winnowing" that is part of our inheritance from our intellectual and institutional forbearers, beginning with Richard Ely. Most of you have heard the phrase, and many of you have seen the plaque atop Bascom Hill, from a century ago:
Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the Great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found. Taken from a report of the Board of Regents. 1894 [slide of the plaque projected]
As many of you know, this quotation, famous on campus and off, came out of a fierce debate about (of all things) unionization, in 1894. In brief, Ely supported unionization, and some of the Regents did not. They never, to my knowledge, reached agreement on the specific issue, but they did, in the end, establish a firm principle that at Wisconsin, people had a right to speak on different sides of important issues; a right to be heard; and that we owe those with whom we disagree, as well as those with whom we agree, a duty to listen.
To be clear, "sifting and winnowing," doesn't mean that every idea is equal; but rather that ideas should be heard, and examined on their merits, rigorously, rather than reflexively. As Daniel Moynihan famously put it some years ago, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Sifting and winnowing helps us establish the facts, and helps us form opinions that are grounded in those facts as well as our values.
Now, in light of the principle of sifting and winnowing, today we aim to have some constructive conversations about housing, real estate, and our state's economic development.
I'm a professor, and I do research on these subjects. But economic development is not simply an abstraction, or merely an academic subject. It touches all of our lives, and our children's lives. Economic development is not just about economics, not just how much stuff we can produce or buy. It's also about how well housed we are, whether we're educated to reach our full potential, how well we attend to our health. It even touches on our basic security, and at the national and global level, questions of war and peace.
The key to understanding economic development is to start by understanding there is no key to economic development. There is no silver bullet. Economic development is complicated.
Unfortunately we live in a world where simple solutions get the headlines. All too often, we talk past each other, cherry picking research and arguments that support our preconceived notions, and ignoring research that challenges our preconceptions. Psychologists call this confirmation bias, and it's a very powerful part of human nature. We're all subject to it. We have to fight it, every day. The best way to fight confirmation bias is to hold to rigorous standards of evidence, and hold your own opinions to the same standard to which you hold others.
For example, if you're a Republican, or a fiscal conservative of whatever persuasion, you might think state tax cuts are a silver bullet. It's important that you know about the substantial body of research that tells us simple tax differences between states explain virtually none of the variation in state economic performance.
To pick another example, if you're a Democrat, or someone who worries about providing enough resources to schools, you might think that more dollars to our schools, perhaps for smaller class sizes, are a silver bullet. It's important that you know that of a number of careful studies done on this issue, so far I've only found one that finds statistically significant relationships between class size and performance, and that only in a few grades. Most careful studies are unable to find a simple relationship.
I can list another dozen silver bullets that aren't really silver. School vouchers, charter schools, passenger rail, spending on roads, less regulation of business, more regulation of business.
It gets even more complicated here. None of these is a silver bullet. None, by itself, are magic beans that take us up the stalk to Economic Development Nirvana. Yet each of these ideas contains some germ of truth, or at least can help us think harder and better about what kinds of things are likely to work, and in what combination. Tax cuts can help if we find ways to preserve essential services while reducing taxes. As a society, we haven't had that conversation yet. Some charter schools, and some public schools, do work as advertised; we need to make sure we figure out why, and replicate and encourage them. As a society, we haven't had that conversation yet. It's not about how much regulation we have so much as what kind of regulation, how we make regulations and taxes and other government interventions smarter. As a society, we haven't had that conversation yet.
Recognizing that some of the best ideas will come from people with whom you disagree, is an important step towards making these true conversations, productive conversations. We need, as Ely and the 1894 Board of Regents taught us, to sift and winnow. Fight your confirmation bias; help me see mine, but in a constructive way. Don't paint yourself, or others, into corners. Determine the facts, and what works, without regard to ideology; and then act on it.
This is why we are here today. Join us in a day of sifting, of winnowing, of learning. Let's move these conversations forward today. Listen, as well as talk. Do recognize that, if we're honest and careful about it, sometimes we'll initially be uncomfortable with what we find. Challenge yourself as well as others. Let's move the conversation ahead, not only today, but over succeeding weeks and months and years. Let's get Wisconsin's economy, and our people, moving FORWARD.
On Wisconsin!
Postscript: Several conference participants and colleagues have asked for more details on Malpezzi's claims that research rarely supports "silver bullet" approaches to economic development. In the next several weeks we'll post some details and references, and seek comments and further conversation.
The Progressive online has begun the conversation, with a commentary on Malpezzi's introductory remarks, and his own brief reply, at Progressive.org.
More "sifting and winnowing" to come!
Posts
In this commentary, Prof. Malpezzi wisely, prudently, and eloquently warns against the confirmation biases we are all prone to display. And he seems to suggest that “sifting and winnowing” will work against this bias. But although a wonderful phrase, sifting and winnowing cannot be carried out without a purpose. In other words, there must be one or more dependent variables, or outcome variables, chosen for the sifting/winnowing process. Given that you can get what you want to measure, there is not just one TRUTH, as suggested in the Board of Regents’ quotation, but many truths. We look upon issues from different angles and may choose to rely on the facts that we like, and discard the ones we don’t. Furthermore, people often disagree about what constitutes “facts,” or implication of facts, or relative importance of facts. Alas, even in a world of sifting and winnowing will there be confirmation biases. That I can confirm.
ReplyDelete