|
The article in the Post was sour grades. The
reality is that GMU has been entrepreneurial in recognizing slightly out of sync
economists and creating a spot for them and their programs. Buchanan and
Smith bucked the dominant intellectual trends of the profession to push forward
their agendas. Tullock has done the same, and when Boulding taught here it
was the same thing.
The reality is that 90% to 99% of out of sync
work is accurately dismissed, but 10% to 1% of this work amounts to
revolutionary in science. But in many ways we need the 90% of failed
projects to get the 1 to 10% of truly innovative work. Now this is a risky
strategy for most departments to follow and most shy away from it or get tired
of supporting it.
Note a few things about GMU's strategy --- in
both cases (Buchanan and Smith) while they were recognized the movement they
represented was for a long time discounted and they were not teaching at what
one would term top tier universities before moving to GMU. VPI was a good
school, but certainly not Harvard or Chicago, and the same for Arizona. Both had
left schools that were rising (U VA and Purdue) because of various factors
relatively early in their careers. So the idea conveyed in the Post
article is that these figures worked for years at prestigous universities and
then only in retirement did they come to GMU is wrong.
Now on how that translates into increased
value of a GMU degree. Well obviously it increases the name recognition of the
program, but the question will always remain as to whether if a student was so
good why would they go to GMU to their PhD --- this is similar to what happened
at NYU when I taught there --- which went from 17 to 7 during my 8 years there
in terms of the rankings, but it was know as a school where the faculty were
'better' than the students such that basically 1 student each year would receive
a top placement, but the others would not get jobs in academics. I believe
the situation has improved quite a lot there since I was there in terms of
placement -- so the faculty addressed this issue by increasing the admission
requirements, etc. But if we did that, we wouldn't attract students
interested in the out of sync. So right now, I'd say GMU does best when it
caters to the out of sync and our students do best when they are the best out of
sync economists on the market.
The reality is that GMU is a school that best
serves the out of sync economist. We are clearly the best out of sync
department in the world. Some of what goes on here is no doubt going to
prove itself to have been a waste of intellectual resources, but other stuff
will turn out to be absolutely cutting edge. We don't know that ex ante --
only ex post.
What we should value in James Buchanan and
Vernon Smith's prizes is not just that they got recognized for there genius, but
the way they pursued their careers. Here we have two brilliant men who
fought against scientific prejudies and pursued their work and "forced" the
mainstream of economic thought to pay attention. In short they
demonstrated not only the courage of their convictions, but the courage to
withstand the critique of their convictions.
As for Vernon Smith -- one of the most amazing
things about him is how open he is to new and unconventional ideas. He is
75 and still trying to learn new things and incorporate them into his research
program. It is very exciting to see him probing and
questioning. As for Buchanan, we was willing (and still is) to ask
big and deep questions about social philosophy in a discipline that rewards
techniques and smarts and often reduces the worldly philosophy to exercises in
mental gymnastics or social engineering.
A final point about the 'Austrian'
implications of Buchanan and Smith. First, both are deeply knowledgable and
respectful of 'Austrian' economics. Second, both have made contributions
which in many cases can be understood as 'Austrian' --- in Buchanan it was
subjectivism and his understanding of catallactics, and in Smith's case it was
his testing of Hayek's notion of the use of information and he demonstration of
the groping market. Third, both have pushed Austrian economics in new directions
which people can follow --- Buchanan into political economy and Smith into
neuroscience.
The missing element in mainstream economics is
still a theory of change and with that a focus on the agent of change --
entrepreneurship. But the reality is that much of the progress in
mainstream economics has been through the increasing recognition of points first
pointed out by Mises and Hayek in the 1940s. The ideas are being
incorporated if not recognition for the individuals who first developed the
ideas. This is progress. And GMU is at the forefront of that
progress and I would think that its graduates (such as JC Bradbury) would want
to wear that label proudly and push those ideas more and more. I think GMU
stands for a few things (a) economics with attitude, and (b) economics that is
relevant. As my high school basketball coach used to tell us all the time
with regard to our approach to the game --- don't let the bastards breath. That
is what I think our graduates should be doing with regard to the
profession. Go to the meetings, get on panels, makes sensible comments,
write good papers and send them to the best journals, and write books which
people want to read. Keep the pressure up to promote an economics with attitude
and an economics that is relevant. If you can explain the world better
than your contemporaries, the jobs will come. That is how you increase YOUR
value. Hopefully, your education at GMU prepared you to do
that.
Pete
Dr. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director
James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University 4400 University Drive Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 (703) 993-1149 fax (703) 993-1133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web site: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke
|
- External Value of the Nobel John-charles Bradbury
- Re: External Value of the Nobel Peter J Boettke
- Re: External Value of the Nobel AdmrlLocke
