0ften, the most serious problem with sequels to a very successful first book (or even first film) is that the writer (or filmmaker) ends up trying too hard to better the original, without success. A similar problem plagues the otherwise well written Superfreakonomics. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner just try too hard to match up to the original Freakonomics and the result is far from satisfactory for all those who enjoyed reading the original.
No one can, however, fault the authors for their basic intention?take interesting, unconventional ideas and explain them in equally unconventional ways?Why suicide bombers should buy life insurance, is an interesting ?freaky? question asked by the authors. In choosing to explore the freaky to help readers unravel what are usually complex theories in economics textbooks (more often than not loaded with cumbersome mathematics), the authors offer a valuable service to the average intelligent reader, who prefers not to dabble in Economics 101.
Unfortunately, the authors don?t begin this quest particularly well by choosing to ignore the global financial meltdown in favour of ?more engaging topics.? Perhaps the authors had already written up most of this book before the crisis broke and were unable to revise it quickly enough to include a chapter on the most important economic events of our time.
This omission, whatever the actual reason, robs the book published in the aftermath of the crisis, of a critical element. One expected Superfreakonomics to give us interesting insights into the actions of Wall Street and governments around the globe over the last one year. In the end probably a case of unfortunate timing.
One could have perhaps lived with that omission if the other engaging topics had been dealt with more realistically. One chapter that everyone would have liked to read in the run up to the big climate conference in Copenhagen in December this year, is the one on climate change. That?s the one chapter, which does deal with a pressing policy issue of our times. Unfortunately, both the diagnosis of the climate change problem and the prescriptions for arresting it, are more in the realm of fantasy/fiction than solid research in science and economics. That belching cows and other cattle (via methane emissions) contribute to global warming is known. But to try and argue that automobile emissions are near irrelevant in the context of cattle emissions is trying too hard to be counter-intuitive. Various eminent scientists have already disputed some of the science that Superfeakonomics has peddled on climate change.
In terms of solution, what begins as an interesting insight into global cooling?the eruption of Mount Pinatubo let out enough sulphur dioxide and particulate matter into the atmosphere to block the rays of the sun, which led to a fall in average temperature?descends into ?garden hose in the sky? freaky solution to the problem of climate change.
Relying on the work of a single research group in the US called ?Intellectual Ventures? the authors claim that we could artificially create the effects of a Mount Pinatubo eruption by spraying sufficient amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which would result in rapid global cooling. It?s a cheap solution, which anyone can do (there is no law against it) according to the authors, and it will work. In essence, this sounds like a bizarre ?create more pollution instead of less? to solve the problem created by too much pollution in the first place. Somehow, the whole idea sounds half-baked and while it makes for an entertaining read, one wonders what would happen if people actually started taking it seriously?probably disaster.
The epilogue, which follows the chapter on climate change, follows an experiment conducted by a single Stanford researcher on a group of monkeys-teaching them the value of money and the understanding of money as a unit of exchange.
Incidentally, one of the problems with the book is its over reliance on what is usually research conducted by just a single group or single individual, which makes things sound less than authentic.
Returning to the monkey experiment, it seems that the researcher did finally teach the gang of monkeys the value of money (and its importance as unit of exchange). Almost immediately, one male monkey used the money he had to pay for sex. The experiment was eventually abandoned for fear of the destructive social effects it would have on this group of monkeys who were close to becoming human in their use of money.
If you like these little interesting tidbits you may actually enjoy Superfreakonomics. But don?t take it too seriously, because there is enough monkeying around (too much fun, too little substance) by the authors to rob this book of the credibility it ought to have hads.