The following paper is getting a lot of attention:
by Marion Fourcade, Etienne Ollion, and Yann Algan
(November 2014)
Abstract
In this essay, we investigate the
dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the
United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using
bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the
top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure.
Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through
their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have
external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and in
the confidence they have in their discipline’s ability to fix the world’s
problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority
of economists, where economists’ objective supremacy is intimately linked with
their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has
certainly fueled economists’ practical involvement and their consider- able
influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of
interests, political critique, even derision.
Paul Krugman’s interesting comments regarding the paper can be
found here:
Krugman observes:
“The profession runs
on reputation — basically the shared perception that you’re a smart guy. But
how do you get reputation? Not by having a chair at a major school; that helps
your visibility, but doesn’t protect you from being perceived as none too
bright (in fact, even past work doesn’t do that — you hear younger economists
wondering how that guy wrote those papers.) Nor does having the
support of a powerful person do very much; you can be the favorite student of
the top person in your subfield, but that won’t do more than get your foot in
the door. Instead, reputation comes out of clever papers and snappy seminar
presentations.”