This book does three things: It summarizes the analyses of various common microeconomic phenomena such as discriminatory pricing–analyses that are generally accepted within the field and lead to free market conclusions, but for the most part are unknown to the general public. It includes a discussion of some of the recent work involving the economic analyses of crime and voting. And it serves as a rebuttal to many of the conclusions of Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their recent Freakonomics.

One fault of the book is that it confuses two distinct theses: the free market is a good thing; and economic analysis (even of supposedly non-economic issues) is a good thing. Now, I agree with both theses, and they are of course related–the second supports the first–but their conflation is bound to be somewhat misleading to many readers.

Concerning Levitt and Dubner: Having not actually gone past skimming the reviews, I hadn’t realized how oddly anti-market their positions were until I read Lott. How irritating (but understandable) it is that their book was the most popular economics work of the last few years. Unfortunately, I doubt Lott will sell one-tenth of theirs. Partly this is because like most “conservative” works it won’t get the media coverage it otherwise would. But Lott and/or his publishers are themselves to blame for the overly political presentation (though I suppose this might actually help sales in some quarters), the somewhat awkward title, and the irksome little details (at least to snobs like me) such as affixing “Ph. D.” to the end of the author’s name.

There is also the thinness of the book. In order to be fully convinced of Lott’s conclusions on some of the more controversial matters (e.g. the abortion and crime issue), one must go to the actual sources. (Some of these are papers authored or coauthored by Lott.) On the other hand, the brevity of Freedomnomics encouraged me to actually read it–a not unimportant positive consideration. ( )