Yeah, I have seen different terms used for this (direct vs indirect, static vs dynamic, marginal vs equilibrium). Direct and indirect effects are probably simpler, albeit less clear about the source of “indirect” effects. For example, direct effects of malaria prevention could be living longer and having higher income, whereas indirect effects of malaria prevention could be that areas with high malaria prevention become richer because people can work more when malaria burden is lower. Any use of “indirect effects” that I have seen would include the latter, but both of them are “partial equilibrium effects” in this terminology. So I don’t think the concepts map exactly.
General equilibrium analysis is specifically about different markets, but I know a lot of economists use “general equilibrium effects” informally to refer to the effects of people re-optimizing. That’s why I used it in this context.
And the terminology doesn’t change the basic point, which rephrased would be “we tend to overweight direct effects and underweight + not explicitly talk about indirect effects, we should be more explicit about those when debating ways to do good.”
I’m being fussy, but I’m advocating for using terms precisely. We generally have enough confusion and misunderstanding in discussing these difficult issues. When we have concepts like Partial Equilibrium and General Equilibrium that are rigorously defined in mathematical economics I think we should try to use them as precisely as possible.
Yes economists also sometimes use these terms loosely and I yell at them too :).
I think there are also concepts in game theory that your ideas seem to engage, involving comparative statics of equilibrium concepts other than Nash Equilibrium (single deviation)… , or possibly a sequential game
The indirect effects on labor markets that you mention actually sound to me more like what one would traditionally call general equilibrium effects. Maybe a better term for what you want would be something like “indirect strategic responses” … or “effects taking into account sequential responses of others”?
Yeah, I have seen different terms used for this (direct vs indirect, static vs dynamic, marginal vs equilibrium). Direct and indirect effects are probably simpler, albeit less clear about the source of “indirect” effects. For example, direct effects of malaria prevention could be living longer and having higher income, whereas indirect effects of malaria prevention could be that areas with high malaria prevention become richer because people can work more when malaria burden is lower. Any use of “indirect effects” that I have seen would include the latter, but both of them are “partial equilibrium effects” in this terminology. So I don’t think the concepts map exactly.
General equilibrium analysis is specifically about different markets, but I know a lot of economists use “general equilibrium effects” informally to refer to the effects of people re-optimizing. That’s why I used it in this context.
And the terminology doesn’t change the basic point, which rephrased would be “we tend to overweight direct effects and underweight + not explicitly talk about indirect effects, we should be more explicit about those when debating ways to do good.”
I’m being fussy, but I’m advocating for using terms precisely. We generally have enough confusion and misunderstanding in discussing these difficult issues. When we have concepts like Partial Equilibrium and General Equilibrium that are rigorously defined in mathematical economics I think we should try to use them as precisely as possible.
Yes economists also sometimes use these terms loosely and I yell at them too :).
I think there are also concepts in game theory that your ideas seem to engage, involving comparative statics of equilibrium concepts other than Nash Equilibrium (single deviation)… , or possibly a sequential game
The indirect effects on labor markets that you mention actually sound to me more like what one would traditionally call general equilibrium effects. Maybe a better term for what you want would be something like “indirect strategic responses” … or “effects taking into account sequential responses of others”?