Why Tax Lawyers and Tax Economists Can’t Communicate

Any close observer of the making of tax policy can see it: Lawyers and economists looking at the same issue through entirely different prisms. I’ve been fascinated by how their respective brains work, and why they have so much trouble communicating with one another. It turns out I am not alone.

In a newly published paper in the William & Mary Policy Review, University of Oregon professor Roberta Mann explores why tax lawyers and economists often talk past one another, how their misunderstandings can profoundly affect policymaking, and what they can do to improve matters. Her title says it all: Economists are from Mercury, Policymakers are from Saturn: The Tax Policy Implications of Communication Failure.

Prof. Mann is a professor of business law so she does not come at this as an entirely objective observer. When she posits that economists are from Mercury and policymakers (a word she uses interchangeably with lawyers) are from Saturn, she is writing as a proud citizen of that giant planet. Still, she has worked at both the IRS and the Joint Committee on Taxation, so has at least visited Mercury on occasion.

She is exactly right when she says economists and lawyers speak different languages. And as a lawyer with some knowledge of economics, she is also on the mark when she says that much of what economists do is incomprehensible to non-economists.

In one of her 216 footnotes (no economist would ever have that many citations in a 25-page paper), Mann quotes a classic of the genre:

“Multivariate time-series regression techniques were used to determine the statistical significance of the estimated relation between the top statutory tax rates and various indicators of economic growth. The standard errors were corrected allowing for heterosekdastic and autocorrelated error-term using the Newey-West procedure with 5 lags.”

Here she’s being a bit unfair. True, academic economists do often write this way. But bad writing is not endemic to the economics profession. Besides, there is—pardon me—a good economic explanation for why it happens: Academics have powerful financial incentives, such as promotion or tenure, to publish frequently and to do so in technical journals that have no interest in being accessible to a non-expert audience.

But good policy economists know how to strike a decent balance between careful analysis, including the necessary qualifiers, and explaining an issue to lawmakers. Mann worries that faced with a paper filled with equations, an uninformed legislator will confuse precision with accuracy. It is interesting that much of what she finds incomprehensible in economic analysis is often nothing more than an explanation of  the author’s methodology (such as the bit she quotes) or a warning to readers that results are uncertain.

Here at the Tax Policy Center, we spend a lot of time trying to find the middle-ground between rigor and accessibility. We may not always succeed, but we are aware of our audience. And while most of my colleagues are economists, we like to keep a lawyer around, and often have law professors spend a semester as visiting fellows. Many of them come with training in economics as well as law.

Still, lawyers and economists do think differently. To my mind, it’s because economists want to know why tax law works the way it does and how it changes behavior. Lawyers focus on the mechanics of how the law works. It is a bit like the difference between and theoretical physicists and engineers.

Mann is wrong when she assumes that lawmakers and lawyers are interchangeable. Only about 40 percent of the members of the current Congress have law degrees. Many others identify themselves as business people or educators. My guess is that many staff (who are the true consumers of economic analysis) are non-lawyers as well. I have no idea how many are economists but outside of some committee staff, I’d guess not many.

She asks the most important question at the end of her paper (why do lawyers and economists always put the best stuff at the end?): Why do policymakers misinterpret economic analysis? Mann thinks it is because they don’t understand it. I fear it is because they choose to misread it. Misstating data serves their political interests in the same way as mischaracterizing an opponent’s vote.

They may not have taken a class in economic theory, but they understand incentive effects.

Thanks to Paul Caron and his always-useful TaxProf blog for tipping me off to this fascinating paper.


Bertha and the French Professor: Lessons for Public Private Partnerships

Jean Tirole is an influential, respected, and by all accounts gracious man who won this year’s Nobel Prize in economics. Bertha is a 7,000-ton tunnel boring machine that’s been stuck under Seattle for nine months—but is still tweeting—as state officials and a private contractor battle over who should pay to get her out. What do […]


A “Normal” Budget Isn’t Really Normal

Treasury closed the financial books on fiscal 2014 last week. As my colleague Howard Gleckman noted, the top line figures all came in close to their 40-year averages. The $483 billion deficit was about 2.8 percent of gross domestic product, for example, slightly below the 3.2 percent average of the past four decades. Tax revenues […]


On Residence, Retirement, and Economic Records

Congress is in recess through the mid-term elections. The Daily Deduction will post each Monday until then.  What’s a multinational to do? Where is it to go?  Senator Dick Durbin and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden seem pleased that Chicago-based AbbVie’s  decided to drop its deal with Dublin-based Shire. But other inversion deals continue […]


Ahead of the Midterms, State Economic Trends Present Mixed Signals

Voters say the economy is the most important issue in the upcoming election. But as the most recent State Economic Monitor reports, the economy looks very different depending on what (and what state) you’re analyzing. And polls suggest that voters faced with these mixed messages may focus on other issues when they choose governors in […]


Taxes and Spending Return To “Normal”– But Not For Long

Yesterday, the Treasury Department reported that the deficit for Fiscal Year 2014, which ended on Sept. 30, fell to $483 billion, or about 2.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product. This being Washington, the report was hailed as either an enormous success or dismissed as meaningless.  Who is right? Is it good news or bad news? […]


The Small, Happy World of Supersized IRAs

When Mitt Romney released his tax return information during the 2012 presidential campaign, many of us were introduced to the world of supersized IRAs. Romney somehow had a tax-preferred retirement nest egg valued at $101 million. Maybe he got there by making standard annual contributions and investing really well. Or not. Now, a new Government […]


Cheap Talk, Scoring, and Promises

Congress is in recess through the mid-term elections. The Daily Deduction will post each Monday until then.  Counting devices before they hatch? Should the GOP take the Senate in November, medical device makers may see a renewed push to repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax on their products. The tax is an important financing component […]


Ryan and Lew Both Object to JCT Scoring of Future Tax Reform

Like a couple of baseball managers working the umpires before a big World Series game, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), who wants to be the next chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, are looking to change the way Congress scores tax reform even before Congress begins a rewrite. Ryan […]


How Asset Building Tax Subsidies Miss Their Targets

Nearly one-third of all federal tax expenditures–$384 billion in 2013 alone– is aimed at various forms of asset building, such as retirement savings, higher education, and home ownership. Yet, according to research by several of my Tax Policy Center and Urban Institute colleagues, these tax breaks do little to help low- and middle-income households build […]