I like Bryan's coordination failure idea --- we have a sort of peacock
feathers problem. This is born out, I believe, in the evidence on how much
the average article in the AER is read. The idea that the AER is the best
journal as Bryan said a coordination issue.
This is why I like one version
Michael E. Etchison wrote:
an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap
As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is
getting a copy so expensive?
Standard armchair econ question, really. If prices are going up,
and quantity is going up, we'd suspect
Bryan D Caplan wrote:
Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration
is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production
technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate
technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try.
Frey
Robin Hanson:
Michael E. Etchison wrote:
an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap
As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why
is getting a copy so expensive?
Standard armchair econ question, really.
Yes, I know, and I know what we'd suspect. I
OK Robin so you want to say that consumer wants not truth or relevance but
signals about smartness. Then our profession is doing a decent job, but the
opportunity cost of this is huge. Economics is a particularly relevant
discipline for public policy and social understanding. I believe there
Wait a minute Alex, I am not sure that journal organization has little to do
with the professional organization in the university. Change the nature of
the way resarch is published and presented and the research game will change
within the academy. Journals are like the arbiter of the rules
I wonder if entry is cheap. To effectively enter this market, you have to do more than
edit articles and print copies of the journal. You have to attract valued
contributions and thereby, readers. I believe contributors send articles to journals
on the basis of their brand name. How can a
I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of
seeking
truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I
don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I
think customers in part want faddism and cults of personality.
Robin probably regrets using the word cheap in regard to entry as
this has clearly confused some people. As Robin later pointed out he
meant cheap to mean the journal industry approximates the economic
concept of free entry (more than many other industries we all think of
as
Bill Sjostrom wrote:
"Clearly, there are journals that exist solely as outlets for economists at little teaching colleges to get in the one or two papers they need for tenure, for no
obvious reason."
What are some examples of those journals?
Also, what are some good lines of research or
William Sjostrom wrote:
I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of seeking
truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I
don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I
think customers in part want faddism and
I have taken the liberty of changing the subject line since the discussion seems to
have shifted.
Given that this is the Armchair list, what would economists make of an industry that
works like this:
A firm (the university) hires employees (professors) to make products (articles) that
12 matches
Mail list logo
