Who Thinks Like an Economist?
How the Economist Mental Model Shapes Political Decisions
Forthcoming at Cambridge University Press
Introduction Available Here
Recent populist waves—from Donald Trump’s 2016 election in the United States, built on promises of protectionism and economic nationalism, to the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom—raise crucial questions about why economically detrimental policies gain popular support. These trends extend beyond any single country or era: Argentina, Italy, the Philippines, and many others have seen populist leaders rise to power, often with negative long-term economic effects. Contrary to populist leaders’ promises, evidence shows that economies suffer under economic populism, with long-term declines in income per capita and no tangible improvement in income inequality or living standards for the majority. Why, then, do people often support economic policies that ultimately harm them?
To answer this question, the scholarly literature tends to gravitate toward two primary hypotheses. On one hand, traditional political economy theories argue that voters’ policy preferences are primarily shaped by economic self-interest. On the other hand, cultural perspectives suggest that voters are driven by value systems that prioritize non-economic considerations, such as identity, ideology, and ethnonationalism, over material factors. This book argues that the puzzle lies not merely in voters’ underlying values— whether economic or cultural—but in the mental models they use to evaluate policies and leaders.
Mental models are cognitive frameworks that shape how individuals process information, perceive trade-offs, and evaluate policy outcomes. Those who think like economists—employing the Economist Mental Model (EMM)—use tools such as cost-benefit analysis, an understanding of opportunity costs, and awareness of the interconnectedness of economic actions. Crucially, these tools also help individuals look beyond zero-sum assumptions, consider longer time horizons, and account for how distributional consequences can be mitigated. They thus systematically evaluate trade-offs, weigh long-term outcomes over immediate gains, and tend to support measures that maximize aggregate welfare. Conversely, individuals with Alternative Mental Models (AMMs) are less familiar with economic reasoning and may rely more on heuristics or partisan cues to make decisions. Their worldview often defaults to short-term relief, zero-sum logic, and limited responsiveness to economic information—explaining why some voters embrace welfare-reducing alternatives.
Using a combination of original and existing surveys and survey experiments conducted in countries such as Italy, the UK, and the US, this book develops innovative measures of economic knowledge to identify who thinks like an economist. These measures capture both an understanding of basic economic concepts and the ability to apply them to real-world scenarios. The findings reveal that individuals with high economic knowledge (aligned with the EMM) are more likely to favor policies like free trade and immigration, respond dynamically to economic information, and prioritize cost-benefit information over partisan cues. By contrast, individuals with AMMs show limited responsiveness to economic information and tend to support policies promising short-term relief at the expense of long-term welfare.
This book offers a new perspective on the growing disconnect between expert economic perspectives and public sentiment—one that moves beyond traditional explanations of economic self-interest or cultural values. Its findings hold significant implications for understanding global political trends, informing research in political science, economics, sociology, and psychology, and guiding policymakers, political strategists, and the public in navigating the challenges posed by the rising appeal of populist movements.
Beatrice Magistro 