In 2011, Caplan published his second book, titled Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, arguing that people often work too hard in child-rearing, and as a result, they are scared of the idea of having children. Caplan's book urged parents to relax with respect to child-rearing. The book argues that as the perceived costs (in terms of child-rearing expense and effort) of having children fell, it made sense to have more children based on the basic theory of supply and demand.[19] The book was reviewed in The Wall Street Journal,[20]The Guardian,[21]RealClearMarkets,[22] and The Washington Times.[23] It also led to debates sponsored by The Wall Street Journal[24] and The Guardian.[25]The Guardian had Caplan debating "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua on the merits of strict parenting style.[25] The book was also featured in a story on National Public Radio.[26]Kirkus Reviews described it as "inconsistent and unpersuasive."[27]
"The Ideological Turing Test"
In a June 2011 blog post titled "The Ideological Turing Test" contesting Paul Krugman's claim that political liberals can accurately state conservatives' views but not vice versa, Caplan proposed a test analogous to a kind of Turing test: instead of judging whether a chatbot had accurately imitated a person, the test would judge whether a person had accurately stated the views of ideological opponents to the opponents' satisfaction.[28][29] Other writers have since said of someone that they can (or can't) "pass an ideological Turing test" if they are deemed to be capable (or incapable) of understanding and accurately stating an adversary's arguments.[29][30][31]
The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money was published in 2018 by Princeton University Press. Drawing on the economic concept of job market signaling and research in educational psychology, the book argues that much of higher education is very inefficient and has only a small effect in improving human capital, contrary to much of the conventional consensus in labor economics that Caplan claims takes the human capital theory for granted.[32][33]
Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration
Tyler Cowen called it "a landmark in economic education, how to present economic ideas, and the integration of economic analysis and graphic visuals."[35]The Economist praised it as "a model of respectful, persuasive argument".[36]Kevin D. Williamson concluded a review of the book with "Professor Caplan's argument is multifaceted, energetically presented, fun to read, and worth giving some real attention to if only as an exercise in clarifying one's own thinking about the question".[37]
National Review said that the book was "fun to read" and well-presented but that Caplan did not address some obvious counterarguments against open borders and suggested that he oversimplified the issue.[38]
Labor Econ Versus the World
In 2022, Caplan published Labor Econ Versus the World: Essays on the World's Greatest Market, a collection of his essays from the publication EconLog edited by Jack Pfefferkorn. In it, Caplan argues against minimum wage laws, immigration bans, government spending on education, and Keynesianism.
Tyler Cowen wrote a reaction to the book, stating that his disagreement with Caplan is "that most of the inequity occurs upstream of labor markets, through the medium of culture."[39]
^Crittenden, Michael R. (June 26, 2009). "Bernanke Blasted in House". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on September 1, 2019. Retrieved November 20, 2019. Bryan Caplan, a George Mason University economics professor and a former Ph.D student of Mr. Bernanke's.
^Lomasky, Loren (June 2008). "Swing and a myth: a review of Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter". Public Choice. 135 (3–4): 469–484. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9273-7. S2CID153330363.
^Read, Rupert (December 14, 2010). "Economist-kings? A Critical Notice on Caplan, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies". European Review. 19 (1). Cambridge University Press.: 119–129. doi:10.1017/S1062798710000426. S2CID143437722. Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies has been received by rave reviews. These reviews appear to have failed to note that Caplan's book celebrates the market and denigrates democracy at the very time when markets worldwide have failed and democracies have ridden to the rescue. It thus appears to have been undermined fatally by events that occurred as it was published (and which Caplan artfully omits to mention in the more recent paperback edition). Caplan's book in fact stands in the long tradition of anti-democratic writings that argue that an elite must rule. An elite of free-market economists. An elite no longer in good odour, since the financial crisis (and the climate crisis) occurred and became starkly evident to all. This Critical Notice also points out that numerous of Caplan's key claims, such as that individual voters have zero effect on election results, are empirically false.
^Last, Jonathan (April 16, 2011). "Go Ahead, Have Another". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on June 30, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
^Russell, Nicole (May 4, 2011). "Go and Multiply, Without Guilt". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on September 29, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
^ abGalef, Julia (2021). "Could you pass an ideological Turing test?". The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. pp. 203–205 (204). ISBN9780735217553. OCLC1164823768. I treat the ideological Turing test as a kind of 'North Star', an ideal to guide my thinking ... I once saw someone talk about how important it is to be able to pass an ideological Turing test and then add, 'Of course, people often don't want to do this, because they're afraid they'll change their minds.'
^Kling, Arnold (2019). The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divides (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. p. 66. ISBN9781948647427. OCLC1110724336. That characterization of progressives and conservatives would not pass an ideological Turing test.