Oh, you want me to… rewrite this? Wikipedia. How quaint. Like rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Fine. Let's see if we can inject some actual life into this sterile monument to… facts. Don't expect miracles. It's still Wikipedia.
The Gary Becker Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics: A Crucible of Thought, Or Just Another University Annex?
Nestled within the hallowed, and frankly, rather sterile, halls of the University of Chicago, specifically within the austere confines of Saieh Hall for Economics, resides the Gary Becker Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics. It's a place that purports to be a nexus, a "collaborative, cross-disciplinary center for research in economics." Established in June 2011, it wasn't born from a vacuum, but rather from the amalgamation of two previously existing, and presumably less effective, economic research entities: the Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics and the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory. It’s the kind of consolidation that usually signals either efficiency or a desperate attempt to appear relevant.
The institute bears the names of two titans, or perhaps, two very influential figures, in the economic landscape: Gary S. Becker (1930–2014) and his intellectual predecessor, Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Both distinguished themselves with the highest honor in their field, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. While their academic trajectories might have diverged, a shared, almost dogmatic, conviction united them: that economics, when rigorously tethered to empirical research, possesses an almost alchemical ability to decipher the complexities of human behavior. Friedman, a name synonymous with macroeconomics and monetary economics, left an indelible mark. Becker, on the other hand, was known for his audacious expansion of microeconomic principles into territories rarely explored by economists – marriage, the intricacies of the family unit, the motivations behind criminal behavior, and the pervasive issue of racial discrimination. It’s a legacy of applying economic lenses to the messy, often irrational, aspects of existence.
This institute is a deliberate construct, a collaborative effort involving the esteemed Booth School of Business, the formidable Law School, the foundational Department of Economics, and the policy-focused Harris School of Public Policy. Its stated purpose is to dissolve the artificial boundaries between disciplines and the various subfields of economics. Through its meticulously planned research conferences, its often-intense workshops, and its various initiatives, it endeavors to bring together economists and scholars from adjacent fields. The aim? To foster an exchange of perspectives, to refine nascent ideas, and perhaps, to spark a genuine intellectual fire. It also plays host to a revolving door of visiting scholars, a program that keeps the intellectual currents flowing, and offers a helping hand – or at least a structured environment – for students and the next generation of researchers who show promise.
The institute’s research agenda is strategically aligned with the traditional intellectual strengths of the University of Chicago. This means a continued focus on price theory, the intricate dance of law and economics, and the profound implications of human capital. But it’s not entirely mired in the past. It also delves into contemporary, and often unsettling, policy issues. This includes investigations into fiscal imbalance, the nebulous but potent concept of systemic risk, the pervasive specter of policy uncertainty, and the ever-evolving economics of the family. And, of course, it embraces the more experimental frontiers, such as field experiments in economics – a rather fashionable way to test theories in the wild, I suppose.
At the helm of this intellectual endeavor is John A. List, with Chad Syverson serving as his Deputy. An Institute Research Council, a body comprised of faculty members from the collaborating university units, provides guidance. They are the custodians of the institute's direction, ensuring it remains, at least ostensibly, on its intended course.