I really enjoyed Freakonomics, but was left with the desire for more. What's next? Will we be seeing a Freakonomics II on the bookshelves some day?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): Yes, we've just signed up a second book. We have just one goal, which is to make it better than the first one. So it will likely take a good few years of research. We had kept working together since finishing Freakonomics, just because we very much enjoyed the collaboration, so we do have a bit of a head start.
You two seem to make a great team. I see you now have a column in the New York Times Magazine. Is this book the beginning of a long-term business relationship, or do you two plan on going your separate ways?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): Yes, we're in it for the long haul. I'm sure that I'll do some writing without Steve and I know that Steve will be writing bushels of academic papers without me, but between the second book, our regular NYTimes column and some other things, I think we will continue to aggravate each others' wives with constant and lengthy phone calls.
The connection between abortion laws and the crime drop is fascinating, but wasn't received well by the press or society. Do you feel like more people are opening up to the idea since the book has been published?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): I'm not sure I'd say it "wasn't received well": most people, once they read the book (and/or the academic papers that chapter is based on) seem to grasp the argument pretty thoroughly and, in general, agree with it. Some people disagree, to be sure, on factual grounds. The more common case, however, is for someone to disagree -- or, more likely, to be so distraught by the moral implications, that they don't really form a counterargument -- simply because abortion is such a loaded issue. There are a few words in modern society that a mere mention of same sends people running to the barricades to defend their beliefs. "Abortion" is certainly one of those words. But once people put aside their personal feelings about abortion itself, it's not hard to see the argument that Roe v. Wade was a big contributor to the crime drop.
Were there any studies that you cut from the book due to space constraints?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): There are a few subjects that Levitt has done a ton of research on, including sports/gaming/gambling and cars. For various reasons, none of that fit this book. Perhaps the next one.
What studies had you always hoped to do, but could never find enough data for?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): I can't speak for Steve, but I know there are a million. In 9 out of 10 cases, the data doesn't exist, or isn't large or robust enough. A lot of people have written us lately to ask that we look into the causes of autism; I do know that Steve tried to get good data on that and failed.
I double majored in Econ and Business Administration because I found my Econ classes weren't practical enough. My only Freakonomic-like experience was a study I did that proved that SAT scores, High School GPA, and College GPA were not an indicator of future success (in terms of salary). Do you think this book may inspire Econ professors to take on more interesting topics or more college students to consider economics as a major? Maybe you've already seen evidence of this, perhaps a Rogue Economics 301 class?
Stephen Dubner (and Steve Levitt): I don't know about Rogue Economics, but I do know that a lot of colleges (and high schools) are starting to use Freakonomics as a supplemental text for their regular econ. courses. Obviously I'm biased, but I think that's a good thing. There have been some wonderful econ. books over the years by wonderful economists, but for whatever reason, the subject has never really been embraced by the mainstream in the way that, say, psychology has been in the past half century. One thing that's bolstering about the reaction to Freakonomics is that perhaps people really are ready to absorb the beauty of economics; we're all fortunate (none more so than me) to have Steve Levitt as a teacher.
