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 of the Tullock solution --- eliminate the journals per se and have a central posting service and then judge articles on how much they are downloaded. I bet this would improve the information conveyed in abstracts and also change the incentive for people writing a few lousy papers since everything will be reputation based, etc. Sure there will be problems with this, but think about the potential benefits and then we can weight them against the potential costs and see if that system would on net a viable alternative to the current situation. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan D Caplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: fantastically entertaining paper > Robin Hanson 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 claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate > > tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the > > effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). > > I must have raised this issue before, but aren't you leaving out a key > competitive assumption, namely profit maximization? If you have a ton > of firms but their motive is not financial success, most of the standard > results don't go through. You might appeal to survivorship (with > randomly assigned objective functions, profit maximizers gradually take > over), but if non-profits have a continual stream of subsidies that does > not have to work. > > > If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among > > the first to make the standard economist's response: If your > > preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs > > without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why > > hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever > > person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information > > market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey > > doesn't even try here. > > How about simple coordination failure? The AER is focally viewed as the > top econ journal. If one person says the AER sucks and ignores it he > mostly hurts his own prospects. A lot of people would have to > coordinate on an alternative at once for this to change. > > > I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic > > journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. > > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > -- > Prof. Bryan Caplan > Department of Economics George Mason University > http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; > 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. > Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, > He'll turn against his most profound conviction > And with a furious eloquence deplore it, > If only someone else is speaking for it." > Moliere, *The Misanthrope* > >
