Why Is An Economist Writing This Book?

I think you should include a couple of paragraphs to answer those questions. Non-economists who read books by economists generally enjoy being able to place things in context. It is manifestly unusual and exciting for someone to take up this topic, particularly a scholar such as yourself. Explain it, and do include some references to GMU.

Why not put it in an appendix? That way you can get straight to the point while still including the explanation for those who want to read it.

Having children is, for most of us, the most significant thing we will do in our short lives. In my case, the most significant choices I made for 30 years all related to my children. As long as economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources, then the subject of children will be an important aspect of economics. To me, a non-economist, this seems like a very appropriate subject for an economist to tackle.

Hey, why don’t you let a non-economist write your preface?

I can’t imagine it being that interesting to non-economists. When I read a book I don’t much care for how the author labels himself.

Maybe we see some kind of a “paradox” that an economist would write about this subject, but this observation is limited to people familiar with economics. Maybe you could include it as a postscript or something…

You should definitely address the question in the preface, and include the “contrasting” witty economist question. It’s an excellent one liner.

According to Bryan:
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids is behavioral economics of the family. I treat standard Beckerian analysis as normative, and advise parents to revise their behavior to fit the theory.

Perhaps selfishness is now more the norm for American families (absolutely abnormal in Asia). Advising parents to revise their behavior to fit the theory and practice it makes a lot of sense: if you want your children to be selfish.

If you make it clear that this is what the preface is about, then people who are not interested can skip it.

If you are going to explicitly address it, I’d keep it short. The GMU thing is an engaging story to some but it has little to do with the book. I dislike long-winded introductions that detail the author’s personal motivations.

That you are an economist will be obvious by your arguments. After they read the book they will understand why an economist wrote it. If they don’t catch on to any of that, they probably don’t care.

I concur with Zac Gochenour’s “keep it short” sentiment (if you do it at all). There’s been an explosion of “the economics of X” type books since Freakonomics. I think your book’s audience would have a high overlap with readers that have already been exposed to this sort of analysis. Those readers that have not had this exposure will catch on.

Although, it might be interesting as an afterword. Sort of, “By now you’ve probably figured out I’m an economist…”

Making a big deal about being an economist seems like an appeal to authority (the weakest form of valid argument). Your arguments should stand or fall on their merits. Whether you are an economist or simply a parent shouldn’t make a difference.

Writing is a form of artistic expression. As with other kinds of media, artists can get too close to their work, and it is sometimes a good idea to allow another person to offer an objective opinion (which is what you’re doing now).

If you don’t want someone else to write your preface, then consider asking a few good friends who can maintain their objectivity to read the book and then ask them what they think you were trying to accomplish. You might be surprised at what they tell you, because they may see things in the book that you didn’t even know were there.

Why would anyone read a preface?

Sure! Chatter away on your motivation! I love when authors have a preface and talk about what they were thinking as they went into the project.

That said, I usually skip a preface on the first read.

No, definitely not. If you write something like, “…in this book, economist Bryan Caplan shows that…” & you don’t explain why an economist is writing a book on parenting, you’ll pique the reader’s curiosity. You’ll make them wonder what the hell an economist is doing writing a book on parenting, make them think that there must be some really weird intersection between child psychology & economics discussed in the book, & thus, they’ll want to read it.

Also, you should include a chapter on the markets for children’s products & how both child & parent work as one rational (or perhaps irrational) actor, if you can.