Agree. Economists don't consult (or admit to consulting) other fields enough. Some subfields are traditionally open to other fields, eg, econ history, development & pol econ.

This piece has a few blind spots, too.

1) Why just call out lack of gender diversity in econ? 1/n https://twitter.com/erinhengel/status/1248509892022931456

"...Their discipline needs to be disrupted by an injection of new ideas, methods, and assumptions about human behavior. Unfortunately, there are powerful obstacles to this disruption: elite control and lack of gender diversity."

Economists' lived experiences r key to ideas. 2/n

Agree w/ needed disruption. Gender, racial & other types of diversity would help identify early warning signs in financial crises (see Janet Yellen) & to understand ec behavior broadly.

2) Not all economists are forecasters. Those who are possess varying degrees of humility. 3/n

Some economists are interested in unusual or understudied factors that can have grave economic, financial, and other consequences, eg, violence. Such analyses are often considered not mainstream or relevant for large economies (top 5 or other journals)...until a crisis hits. 4/n

Crises have to be approached with humility and imagination.

Humility is required, b/c economists, like other social scientists, can establish necessary but not sufficient conditions for crises. Recall that poli sci did not predict the fall of the USSR nor the Arab Spring. 5/n

Economists, & other social scientists, must be humble about our data, models, assumptions & conclusions.

Crises require bold imagination to exit crisis and resume (normal) life & economic activity. Narrow solutions offered in the pub process often fall short in a crisis. 6/n

Grateful 4 economists in my career who've shaped & encouraged out-of-the-box thinking, eg, Akerlof, @B_Eichengreen, @paulmromer, Milton Friedman, Christy & David Romer, @JeffDSachs, @SandyDarity & Arrow.

Humbled by crises in Russia, Rwanda & US to match research to action. /end