Most of us pay pretty close attention to the economy. Most of us don't pay too much attention, however, to economics, often known as the "dismal science." I know I didn't, early on in my career. But while in graduate school, I took two semesters each of Micro-Economics and Macro-Economics, and found the study strangely interesting. Since then, I've read a lot on the dismal science, from Ibn Khaldun to Adam Smith to Ludwig von Mises, to Thomas Sowell, to Keynes, and yes, Krugman and even Marx.
So, as you might imagine, when it comes to economics, I like to think I'm pretty well-versed in the varying philosophies and viewpoints. (I lean pretty strongly towards Dr. Thomas Sowell, myself.)
Because of that, I wasn't in the least surprised to learn of a study recently released in the Journal of Economic Education, that Republicans and conservatives in general show a higher level of economic literacy than Democrats/liberals.
From that study's abstract:
The authors measure economic literacy among a representative sample of U.S. residents, explore demographic correlates with the measure, and examine how respondents’ policy views correlate with it. They then analyze policy view differences among Republicans and Democrats and among economists and non-economists. They find significant differences in economic literacy by sex, race/ethnicity, and education, but little evidence that respondents’ policy views relate to their level of economic literacy. Examining heterogeneity by political party, they find that estimated fully economically literate policy views (i.e., predicted views as if respondents scored perfectly on the authors’ economic literacy assessment) for Democrats and Republicans are farther apart than respondents’ original views.
Yes, this is couched in some pretty science-y language; that's how these kinds of reports generally are. Also, the full report is paywalled, but over at the Daily Sceptic, contributor Noah Carl has recorded some interesting analysis. Unsurprisingly, the left didn't come out too well.
In a recent paper, Jared Barton and Cortney Rodet sought to address the question more systematically. They gave a representative sample of Americans a test of economic literacy, and then looked at whether Democrats or Republicans scored higher. They also examined whether respondents’ economic literacy scores were correlated with their views on specific policies.
The authors’ test of economic literacy was based on the Test of Economic Literacy, a high-school assessment developed by the Council for Economic Education. The full test has dozens of questions, but they selected 15 due to the constraints of an online survey. All the questions are multiple choice.
For example, Barton and Rodet’s test included the question, “From an economic point of view, which approach to controlling pollution is most efficient?” The correct answer is, “Reduce pollution as long as the additional benefits are greater than the additional costs.” The incorrect answers are: “Abolish the use of toxic chemicals in all production”, “Use economic resources to eliminate all pollution”, and “Adopt laws and regulations that prohibit economic activities that cause pollution problems”.
That's a fairly free-market response: A good economic analysis would do precisely what the correct answer in this survey describes, a cost/benefit analysis. That is what should be at the heart of any economic decision, be it a child buying a candy bar or a major corporation planning a buy-out of a competitor. That's the source of the old saying, "A politician will ask you what you want. An economist will ask you what you want more."
So what did they find? Average scores for different groups are shown in the table below. (Recall that the test has 15 items, so a score of 8 means getting more than half the questions right.)
Here's the table:
— Ward Clark (@TheGreatLander) November 17, 2025
There are a few interesting things one can winkle out of that report.
Read More: Wealth Taxes: How They Chase Away the Productive and Stifle Growth
Why Mamdani's 'Popular' Wealth Tax Proposal on the 'Ultra Rich' Will Fail
First, men show a higher level of economic literacy than women. Being a happily married man, I won't comment further on that. Economic literacy increases somewhat with age, which again, isn't surprising; as my father was fond of saying, "We grow too soon old and too late smart."
But the ethnicity numbers, now these are interesting indeed. White respondents scored the highest, followed by Asians, and Native/Pacific Islander/Other. There may be societal reasons for that; poorer educational attainment in students in liberal-run urban school districts, perhaps? Education does show a strong parallel, with scores rising significantly with educational attainment. I stand here right now as evidence of that, as I described above.
Republicans came out a full point higher than Democrats. That, again, should come as no surprise.
Despite this finding, Barton and Rodet found that respondents’ economic literacy scores had generally weak associations with their views on specific policies. For example, those with higher scores were no more likely to oppose government jobs programmes or to favour less regulation of business.
In fact, across 30 specific policies, there were only four that showed significant associations with economic literacy. Respondents with higher scores were more likely to oppose government efforts to control prices and reduce income differences. And they were more likely to say government should spend less on the military and the arts. Yet even these associations were weak.
People can be inconsistent.
Here's the thing about economics: It's in large part a science, or, perhaps, a study, that tries to read the minds of consumers and producers who, as often as not, don't know what they themselves may think on a given issue. People aren't computers; we can't predict a person's priorities, the various factors that will go into the cost-benefit analysis. Case in point: There was, some years back, a movement in Alaska to move the state capital from Juneau, which can only be reached by boat or by air, to the Mat-Su community of Willow, more or less 70 miles north of Anchorage on the Parks Highway. That would have brought a boom of jobs and economic activity to Willow, now a rather sleepy little Susitna Valley community. A lot of people already in the area would have benefited, economically, from the hikes in real estate values, from the jobs, from the increased flow of people.
But a lot of Willow residents valued their rural lifestyle more than the economic activity that the move would have brought. They did their own cost-benefit analysis, whether they realized it as such or not, and decided on the lifestyle. But economics did win out in their favor; an initial referendum on the issue was approved by Alaska voters, but a second vote was required once there was a cost estimate on the move, at which point Alaskans said no. Willowbillies, as they are known hereabouts, were generally pleased with that.
This study, then, is something of a mixed bag. It does seem to point who favor free-market economics tend to lean somewhat right - and that economic literacy increases with age and wealth. A confirmation of something we may well have suspected, but it's not a hard answer.
But then, these things seldom are. That's probably why economics is known as "the dismal science." As something of an economics geek, though, I find this sort of work interesting. Your mileage may vary.
