Economics Should Just Admit It's a Soft Science: A Short Review of Blood and Treasure

Should I Read This: Yes

Book Seller Link (non-affiliate, but I do know the owner): Blood and Treasure a book by Duncan Weldon

Author’s Website: About - Value Added

I waffled about this book. I really wanted to like this book more than I did. The idea of exploring how conflict is shaped by economics and economic activity is interesting to me, because I am a giant nerd. But the book doesn’t really scratch that itch. First, because it seems to think that incentives are a purely economic term, and a lot of what it discusses are incentives that are not really economic in nature. Second, the book covers a lot. And so many times it only touches upon what I thought would be the most interesting aspect surrounding the conflict and then moves on. But the more I sat with the book, the more I think I was being unfair.

The first complaint is mostly my irritation at the field of economics in general. It has a tendency — highlighted by the almost unconscious assumption that social science mainstays like incentives belong wholly to economics alone and that economic incentives alone are the only incentives that matter — toward certainty that it has never earned. It is not fair, however, to judge a book on my distaste for some of the practices and culture of the field the author comes from. The quirks I mentioned never overwhelm the book, and the discussion of incentives, even if the author occasionally doesn’t seem to realize that what he is discussing is not actually economics, is still very interesting. In general, the stories highlight factors that I have not usually seen brought forward when discussing these conflicts. It does a fine job of making you see history a little differently.

And that highlights my second failing: it is not fair to judge a book on what I would have preferred it to be. This book covers a lot of ground and many conflicts, spanning most of modern history. It therefore does not cover any of them with a lot of depth. And I found myself disappointed several times by the book pulling back from exploring specific topics and situations in a deeper fashion. But that was not what the author, Duncan Weldon, was attempting. The book is an overview, meant to introduce you to a new set of tools for looking at historical events. It does that very well, with an overview that is intriguing enough to make you want to know more and a bibliography that seems, at first glance, well suited to allowing you to explore these topics in much more detail. That it does not provide a lot of depth is not a failure of the book — it is my failure to read it on its own terms.

So, yes. I do think you should read this book. It is a well-written overview (Weldon is an engaging writer who never falls into dry recitation or lecturer's voice) of a way of looking at history that is at least somewhat unusual. It explains the concepts well, even if they are not as economically driven as the hook in the title might imply, makes them intriguing, and provides you with the resources to dig further. It is, in other words, a very good survey book. If you have any interest in history or in why people make decisions, for good or ill, and how institutions both shape and react to incentives in unexpected ways, I would read this. Just understand that it is a first step, not the complete journey.