[1481] Of clarification on statement regarding Tony Pua

I froze for a moment when I saw a short article on Tony Pua today:

KUALA LUMPUR: In February, 35-year-old self-made Internet millionaire Tony Pua made news when he sold his Singapore Stock Exchange listed company for a full-time career in opposition politics.

Pua is a well-known name in the e-commerce industry, where his string of credentials include his being the youngest founder-CEO to have listed a company in Singapore.

But a 2005 Ernst and Young audit report recently revealed that the company, Cyber Village Sdn Bhd, may be running into difficulties, and Pua’s reputation as a corporate whizz kid, which resulted in the DAP appointing him economic adviser to secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, has been called into question. [Doubts over DAP’s economic adviser. New Straits Times. December 22 2007]

There is a little storm going on and I had somewhat contributed to it by making a comment somewhere over the internet of which Jed has taken the liberty to reproduce to support her points. The comment is about how Tony Pua is not an economist. I stand by that statement but I need make myself clear: I wrote it in a matter of fact manner. It does not in whatsoever way indicate my opinion on his management or entrepreneurship skill. Or even his ability to advise on economic matters. Indeed, anybody with a good understanding of economics would be able to advise a layperson. On top of that, a good economist may not be a good businessman, vice versa. A businessman or entrepreneur need not be a economist either, vice versa. Economics after all, is larger than the realm of business.

Regardless, he is not an economist. He qualification does not merit such honor and I have not heard him claiming to be as such either. So, I do not understand why people are insisting that Mr. Pua is an economist, or why the fact that Mr. Pua is not an economist is an issue at all.

Now, who is an economist? What does one need to do to become an economist?

To answer that, I leave you with an entry at the Free Exchange, a blog at The Economist:

WHAT exactly qualifies someone to refer to himself or herself as an economist? Having suffered through many years of graduate school, I, like many others with my training, consider someone an economist only if they too have received a PhD in the subject. I can rationalise this by believing I received special and select training; privy to the secrets of the trade imparted to me by my advisor who, in turn, also learned from the great masters. My take on the economy reeks of the university I attended and the professors with whom I worked. But then, someone, like former colleague Megan McArdle, comes along with no graduate economics work, but a terrific understanding of the field.

To refer to oneself as a medical doctor or be a member of the American Medical Association there exists clear education requirements. This prevents people from taking medical advice from someone unqualified and inflicting harm upon them. No such conditions are required to be called an economist or join the American Economic Association. This results in people who enjoy thinking about the economy, but may lack even undergraduate understanding of the field, representing themselves as experts on issues pertaining to the labour market, trade, and development. Often you have to do some digging to find out they are actually … sociologists.

The years of graduate-school seminars and rigorous mathematical training empowers PhD economists to converse with each other in a language all our own. This allows us to continue to believe that our years of education were worthwhile because we can recognize each other and sneer at the impostors. In the mean time, the rest of the world takes thoughtful advice and opinions from people who sometimes, while not having our illustrious pedigree, also have some very good ideas—and sometimes better ones. [What makes an economist? Free Exchange. October 2 2007]

Personally, unless someone is a practicing economist, I would only recognize someone as an economist if he has at least a Master’s in the field. A mere undergraduate degree does not qualify one as an economist. But to call someone with an unfocused degree such as PPE as an economist, to me, is an insult to those that have actually worked their way through the field.