If morality and ethics describe how we would like to behave and economics describes what people truly think and feel, can analysing questions about our society from an economics perspective give fresh insights?

The authors, one an economist the other a journalist, believe so and set out to disentangle the root causes of various issues. Data is marshaled to uncover correlations and disprove conventional wisdoms. And their examples and arguments are persuasive, covering topics such as what parental behaviour actually contributes to a child’s school success. In that case long term data drawn from the Chicago public school system shows it’s less about parenting actions and more about who the parents are - are they themselves better educated, curious readers, involved and successful.

One chapter introduces the idea of information asymmetry. A party having (or appearing to have ) more information than another gives them an advantage. Such advantage can show financially in, for example, an expert’s professional fees. They can charge them because they know more on the subject than you. But it’s also true for the arguments made in the book. Without deeper information it’s impossible to critique the examples and conclusions made. So while the authors’ discussions feel thoughtful and are interesting, I’ve neither the data nor background to assess the truth.

Even with that caveat it feels as if this more analytical approach to public policy would create better outcomes. Less political posturing and more facts can’t be a bad thing and this book shows an effective route to that.