For the past five years, I have traveled to Texas A&M in college Station to collaborate with the ag econ people there. I have served on dissertation committees, worked with devoted students, and published several papers with them. One, on climate change, is among the best papers I have produced in recent years. These visits have also made me think about what Berkeley and Texas can learn from each other.
Berkeley wins my affection with its hills and trees, beautiful houses and heavenly weather. College Station is flatter, and the summer heat is hell. But I grew up in Israel, so I can cope. Walking at night, when the air is cooler, feels like a stolen privilege.
The academic differences are more complicated. At A&M, I find a strong identity as agricultural economists. Most of my ARE colleagues at Berkeley identify more with general economics. Our department at Berkeley has a much stronger international reputation. Its faculty and students aim high, often at the top five economics journals. This is ambitious but narrow., The top journals emphasize few techniques and topics. However important problems and valuable methods that do not fit the temporal interests of these journals are also worthy of our attention. I believe Berkeley would serve the world better by encouraging a wider publishing strategy, including multidisciplinary journals.
At A&M, colleagues treat me as one of the leading agricultural economists in the world. At Berkeley, some younger faculty members seem to regard me as a strange bird. I am interested in problems that lead me across disciplinary boundaries, and I have never considered publication in the top five my main objective. A&M may not have Berkeley’s concentration of academic excellence, but some students I have met there could succeed at any university. Their ability and dedication are remarkable. I have also enjoyed their international diversity. Working with them reminds me how much talent exists beyond the departments that receive the most attention. In climate change and agriculture, I believe some of the work at A&M is as good as that done anywhere. For example, the work McCarl his students produce on climate change are top notch and uniquely address major policy questions.
I find difference in doctoral training between the departments. Berkeley has a deep and broad PhD curriculum, and students get a common foundation and exposure to a wide range of economic questions, including those outside their advisers’ particular interests. This is a strength that A&M should match more consistently. However, the emphasis on causality and econometric methods at Berkeley and A&M has, crowded out economic theory and knowledge of the economic reality. Learning to identify a causal effect is valuable. But students also need to understand the economic relationships behind it and why the question matters. Weak foundations in economics limit students at both Berkeley and A&M, however sophisticated their methods.
Some of my most rewarding Texas collaborations have been outside economics. Jeff Tomberlin works on black soldier flies, whose larvae turn organic waste into protein and other useful products. This connects directly with my interest in the bioeconomy. With Ashok Mishra, a water engineer, I have studied drought damages and the heavier burdens they impose on poor people. I hope we will produce a book on the economics of water security. These collaborations give me new questions to ask and people to learn from.
I learned about Texas from conversations with Uber drivers and regular folks. They don’t like regulations and want to be left alone, but when it comes to details, they want a functional government that provides good education, safety, and even protection against climate change. People are more likely to speak about God and Country, and several told me that they love Israel even though not many tolerate what’s going on in Gaza. There is buyer remorse among people who voted for Trump and I wouldn’t be surprised if the next election will bring some change. One thing that people speak a lot about is affordability. Things are much cheaper here but salaries are not high. People come to Texas because they can afford a house and decent living as workers.
In Berkeley, we speak a great deal about helping the poor and promoting equality. Yet many of our priorities reflect the concerns of people who are already comfortable. We sometimes give too little attention to what it costs to live with the policies we support. Climate change is one example. It is a major part of my research, and I care deeply about it. But I understand why someone struggling to survive tomorrow may give it less attention. Poor people are vulnerable to climate change, yet they also need affordable housing, electricity, and transportation today. Environmental policies that make these necessities more expensive can hurt the very people we want to help. Some eventually vote with their feet.
Texas speaks less about climate change, but its wind and solar development deserves attention – and aim to address the problem. I think California could learn from the willingness to build energy infrastructure in places such as Texas and China. We should judge climate efforts partly by what gets built and what it accomplishes. California’s enthusiasm for new technology must be accompanied by equal enthusiasm for supplying the energy it needs. I strongly support AI and data centers, and I want us to be vigorous in developing cleaner energy to support them while keeping electricity affordable.
Housing is the clearest example of the difference I feel between Berkeley and College Station. I love Berkeley, but its housing costs make it difficult for young people and families with modest incomes to stay. Our adult children cannot afford to live near us. A beautiful community loses when so many people cannot afford to belong to it.
Regulatory costs and delays are major causes for the higher housing costs of Berkeley. I believe many requirements are excessive. We need serious benefit-cost analysis of our regulatory system. Some rules provide essential protection and are well worth their cost. Others add considerable expense for little benefit. Finding an environmental impact “significant” statistically does not, by itself, tell us how much we should spend to reduce it. We must ask how serious the harm is, what a remedy costs, and who pays. Sometimes a modest response is enough. Sometimes the proposed remedy is not worth its cost.
This is where economics should help. We need to consider the benefits of environmental protection alongside the cost of housing and the ability to earn a living. Good intentions do not settle these choices. I want policies that protect the environment and leave people with a realistic chance to build a decent life. Taking livelihoods seriously should be central to our concern for equality.
Berkeley remains home. I love its beauty and the intellectual community where I have spent much of my life. My visits to Texas have brought friendships, excellent students, and work I am proud of. They have also made me more willing to question the habits of my own university and state. I return with greater appreciation for what Berkeley offers, and with ideas from Texas that I would like us to take seriously.
What a nice and relevant comparison.