« Alfred Chandler | Main | An article of total wisdom »
Econ Journal Watch
The new issue is here, edited by Daniel Klein. I haven't read this issue yet, but I've very much liked the old ones, here is a descriptive table of contents...
In the issue:
Where would Adam Smith publish today? Daniel Sutter and Rex Pjesky show that almost no math-free research appears in top economics journals.
Theory of what? Dan Klein and Pedro Romero articulate the difference between model-building and theorizing, and contend that most articles in Journal of Economic Theory do not qualify as theory.
The Internet and economic discourse: Dan D'Amico and Dan Klein examine the websites of Harvard and George Mason economists, and ask whether the differences speak of differences in character type.
Henrik Lindberg tells of the role of economists in liberalizing Swedish agriculture.
Daron Acemoglu says the economic analysis of constitutions and political structure has been revolutionized by Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini. But Charles Blankart and Gerrit Koester argue that the new political economics is not that new, and might be a step backwards.
Institutional quality is all the rage. So why doesn't research in the top economics journals make better use of the Economic Freedom of the World index? John Dawson reports.
Development economics has discovered important truths about trade, aid, property, and planning. Ian Vasquez recounts how the truths were advanced in the work of Peter Bauer, and how the late-comers often neglect that learning.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Klein's and Romero's evidence of the "paucity of theory in the Journal of Economic Theory" is persuasive.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 14, 2007 1:20:03 PM
The Klein & Romero piece would be better if they had more than 1 year of data. At least give us something to compare the 2004 publication record of JET to ... either a previous year of JET or another journal that is "not" typically thought of as "theoretical". If "non-theory" journals are getting "theory" pieces at the rate of 0.5%, then 12% is not too bad relatively speaking. Actually, I'm surprised it is as high as 12% by their definition of theory...
On the GMU/Harvard paper ... GMU has 2, 2.0001, 2.25, 2.5, 2.75, 2.999 (how do you want to count Gordon Tullock?) Nobel Laureates who have written 1600+ papers in their careers, yet only 21 of those papers are available online via the individual's website. I have an idea - how about GMU finds someone to help these people put some of their work online so future generations have easier access to the works of these scholars. Even just linking to JSTOR articles or individual journal webpages would help. If the authors do not have a digital copy of their works they most certainly have a hard copy sitting around the office that can be scanned into a pdf file and posted online (within copyright limits of course). Then maybe they won't be "Trailblazers too Lightly Mentioned". To be honest, I can't even find Tullock's vita from the GMU econ site, and Buchanan's also involves a little bit of work to actually find.
Posted by: AZ at May 14, 2007 3:37:52 PM
Actually having quickly skimmed the Klein and Romero paper I think it's, uh, not very good. Apparantly they think that articles in the JET are not theory because... they don't care about them! They "fail" 44% article based on that criteria. They fail another 41% because, apparantly the articles fail to adequately address the question of "Theory of What?". Reading their commentary it seems like the actual statement of the authors was "Theory of...whaaaa?". They levy the damning charge that in a particular theoretical article "There is no empirical content". Of course in this context, that charge is,I don't know how to put it otherwise, stupid.
The "Where would Adam Smith publish" article seems pretty silly as well.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 14, 2007 4:36:24 PM
Oy, the more closely I read the Klein and Romero paper the more annoyed I get. They basically unfairly dis some perfectly good articles. They seem to take their own ignorance of the relevant literature as a condemnation of the articles in question. On the question "Theory of What?" they assert:
"If one were to ask an author of one of any of the 27 articles, “What in the world are you talking about?,” the only responsible answer would be:
“Nothing.”"
which is complete bunk. I can give a perfectly good answer to that question for each article they list.
It seems more like the authors just lack the necessary background to make these kinds of judgements. So an abstract for an article on learning only says that it's about learning rather than "saying what is to be explained". But come on, the authors of the original article are simply assuming that an interested reader has some background in the theory of learning. Both abstracts and article length are freakin' limited in practice so this kind of rhetorical approach is necessary.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 14, 2007 5:02:36 PM
sounds like you should start up "econ journal watch watch" there notsneaky! whattya say?
Posted by: kevin at May 14, 2007 6:19:47 PM
Unfortunately I think EJW is becoming another bastion of P-A Economics type arguments. Also how many articles are authored by the editor himself?
The Persson and Tabellini hit piece (which has appeared elsewhere btw) is especially bad. The new political economy does build on some Virginia school public choice but it relies more on Chicago and Rochester style rational choice. So it is no surprise there is not a ton of cites for Buchanan and Tullock. The two P&T books are fabulous btw (they should really be seen as a set I think) and are must haves for anyone doing domestic or comparative political economy.
Posted by: GoodnessOfFit at May 14, 2007 9:14:02 PM
The evidence is mounting; Klein and Romero's piece is confirmatory of
other evidence.
If Klein and Romero's article didn't have a bibliograph that referenced
the work of others who had provided other consistent evidence, THEN I might
be sympathetic to the sarcastic tone of those doubters above. But as K&R are
not an island unto themselves, well the kindest thing I can say is
why don't you try doing your homework before taking the exam.
The bitterness of the uneducated criticisms of K&R above suggest
that K&R have in fact pierced the veil behind which so many models have been
passed off as theory in economics.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 14, 2007 9:25:33 PM
Kevin, who will watch the watchers and all that. And I've liked past issues of EJW before.
Indiana jim, I believe the words I used were "silly", "stupid" and "bunk" which are pretty straight up, no sarcasm intended. And it's true they reference a lot of other papers, and it's also true that I'm not quite familiar with a number of them. However, at best this amounts to a paper that has a robust literature review section and a really crappy methadology. Which can be seen as a rhetorical sleight of hand in terms of academic publishing.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 14, 2007 9:48:15 PM
notsneaky,
You seem to be making my point for me unintentionally; to call an
article that builds upon so much good other work "silly", "stupid", and/or
"bunk" and then to admit that you are "not quite familiar" with
"a number" of the references is, I put it back to you, a "sleight of
hand" in terms of logical blogging.
Again: The evidence is mounting; K&R's piece is confirmatory of others'
evidence and reasoning.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 14, 2007 10:10:43 PM
And you're completely missing the point. I can write an article that "connects" and cites a lot of quality literature but it does not follow that my article - the value added of my research so to speak - necessarily "builds on" that literature or that what I've done is worthy of consideration. The fact that I'm unfamiliar with some of the other papers is what led me to say "at best" - i.e. even if all those other papers that I'm unfamiliar with are top quality, this particular paper is not. To me it seems clear that the authors are trying to evaluate research areas where they have no clue as to what's going on, according to some ad hoc, pull out of thin air standards and irrelevant criteria. They are, essentially, emberassing themselves.
I can easily say "Einstein wrote that E=MCsquared. Therefore I say that tiddly twaddly dah". Just because I "connected" to Einstein, and Einstein is right, does not mean that I'm correct in saying tiddly twaddly dah.
A species of the fallacious argument from authority I believe.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 14, 2007 10:56:15 PM
notsneaky,
Your claim to know the quality of K&R's contribution to an area
that you admit a lack of much familiarity with is "at best" weak.
Hypocritically, you are critical of K&R for the same reason when you say
"the authors [K&R] are trying to evaluate research areas where they
have no clue as to what is going on, . . . " But unlike your case, in
which we have your admitted lack of familiarity with the literature,
in the case of K&R you provide no evidence for your claim
that they have "no clue".
Since there is nothing at all kind that I can think of to say about
hypocrisy,I will retire merely saddened that you are so unwilling
to take a closer look at an article that contributes to a literature
in which you lack depth.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 14, 2007 11:59:41 PM
The discussion of my work with Romero is interesting. I just want to say that EJW is serious about hosting debate. We would welcome analysis of how Romero and I mis-scored any of the JET articles. We believe in debate and controversy as a discovery procedure, and I am not afraid of being proven impetuous and over-reaching. The editor who handled the paper was Fred Foldvary, ffoldvary@scu.edu. Scholarly commentary about the Klein and Romero piece may be directed to him.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at May 15, 2007 7:57:51 AM
P.s., as noted at the EJW website, we have invited the JET editors to respond to the piece. That is characteristic of EJW. We always invite the commented-on to respond, and give them full and free reign.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at May 15, 2007 8:04:22 AM
Indiana jim, alright, take it as a layman's opinion. We're getting a little too meta-meta here. I think my basic point that the K&R criteria are arbitrary and that in order to judge whether a particular article adequately answers the question of "Why should we care?" one needs to be somewhat familiar with the area the article is a part of, and that space limits the extent to which the article can answer the question of "Theory of What?" (and reseachers in the area will likely already know the answer to that question, even if it's not immiediately obvious to an outsider) are all legitimate. It just seems a bit like complaining that the articles in Economic Letters are too short.
It also reminds me of the essentially baseless McCloskey charge that just because economists don't use the precise words "economically significant" everytime they run a regression then that means they don't care about the magnitude of their coefficients.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 15, 2007 7:34:06 PM
Notsneaky,
I think McCloskey's point that "size matters" is well taken. It is useful to question how one meausures indifference to the issue of size. Some proxies are better than others for measuring things. To the extent that McCloskey's proxy(ies) captures indifference to size it is useful. It often advances science to raise questions about the validity of various proxies.
To editors of EJW invite submissions of commentaries about things that appear there; of course those whose articles are commented upon are given the opportunity to rely. Since you are so sure that the Klein and Romero piece is "silly" "stupid" "bunk", why not debunk it in print? When errors are exposed, the chances of repeating them are reduced.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 16, 2007 1:07:31 PM
The Klein & Romero piece is basically a loser's rant. They can't publish anything serious themselves (just look at Klein's publication record), and they don't understand other people's work, so they think everyone else is doing nonsense.
Posted by: wet at May 16, 2007 8:26:17 PM
And given GMU economics department's quality, such poor articles are not surprising.
Posted by: wet at May 16, 2007 9:11:58 PM
wet,
You seem to be all too willing to judge a book by its cover; just looking at someone list
of publications is only the beginning of an honest assessment of a body of research. Only by
doing one's homework and actually reading a body of work can an honest assessment be made. If
you are interested in honesty and integrity it takes effort, the kind of effort that it IS apparent that Klein IS committed to. Your comments suggest that you are not
anywhere near being in the same league as Klein.
And to Klein's credit he invites you to write a rebuttal and submit it to EJW. I'm betting that once you take a look at what Klein has written, you will have nothing that you are willing to put to the test in EJW. That is, I'm betting that you are just blowing smoke. But if not, as Klein says, it would be great to learn via the exposure of his errors.
And on the topic of GMU's department quality, I have no idea how in the world you arrive at the conclusion that it is "poor." How many Nobel winners are there? Do you know what you are saying?
Posted by: indiana jim at May 17, 2007 7:53:37 AM
wet,
I happen to generally agree with notsneaky's view on this article, but I think your
criticism is seriously inappropriate.
Also, I would note that the space constraint issue is a very real one in most journals.
Editors frequently order authors to cut their articles down in length as the journals face
absolute space constraints. In many cases, candidates for being cut would be material that
the authors and editor would presume that informed readers of the article would know, including
the relevant discussions into which the article is placed along with its implications (and my
keeping track of JET suggests that, if anything, there has been an increase in the length of
the mostly verbal introductory sections that include the lit reviews in recent years).
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at May 17, 2007 4:29:52 PM
Barkley,
You generally agree with notsneaky? You think that Klein's and Romero's article is "silly"
"stupid" "bunk"? On what basis?
Posted by: indiana jim at May 17, 2007 7:11:36 PM
Indiana J.
Well, I do not appreciate his use of language, which also seems uncalled for.
However, I agree that there are plenty of cases where the apparent lack of
discussion of "what the theory is about," and so forth is due to the paper's
not discussing some broader set of concerns that someone not conversant with
the literature would find useful. The problem here is that indeed JET is a
highly mathematical journal. As such, the editors assume that most people
reading the journal are coming in at that level of mathiness and most of those
reading individual articles are well enough acquainted with the theoretical
issues involved that they do not need a more general warmup. Again, a serious
factor here is the space constraint issue, and I repeat as someone who has
followed JET for a long time (and, yes, I admit, even pubbed in it) that it
has in fact gotten "better" in terms of having the papers provide longer,
strictly verbal, intros for those less up on what the papers are about, in
contrast to, say, the Journal of Mathematical Economics, where the papers
generally just plunge right in to the straight math with almost no warmup.
This problem occurs at the level of all journals. To pick on a lower level
journal (in terms of mathiness), should the Southern Economic Journal insist
that every paper published in it explain what the law of supply and demand
is for the benefit of any readers who wander in off the street who just
happen not to be acquainted with said law?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at May 17, 2007 8:43:46 PM
BTW, while we are at it, I would lay odds that if Adam Smith were alive
today, as opposed to being helicoptered in like some Friedman/Bernanke
money increases via a time machine, he would have learned the math to
deal with at least most of current economics literature, if not necessarily
JET or the Journal of Math Econ. I suspect that he would find quite a few
journals that he would be able to publish in, although he might have to
spout a few equations or theorems here and there to do so, poor thing.
But, even in his own day, Smith seemed to know his Newton and was definitely
a smart guy. I think he would hold his own with the math just fine.
Regarding the broader issue, I am not an unequivocal fan of Bourbakist
formalism, which is certainly the dominant approach in JET and J. Math Ec.
K & R have some grounds for their complaints that a lot of the papers in
them amount to fairly minor additions to a corpse [sick] of such formalistic
mathematical theories that may be too abstract to be of use to practical
policymakers or the average person in the street. But there is a distinction
between bashing this approach to theory for its extremely abstract approach
and saying that there is no theory or that it is about nothing, because the
articles do not all articulate full defenses of what the theory is about from
the standpoint of these more general observers. It is the apparent failure
to maintain this distinction that I think is at the heart of the problems
with the K & R paper, even if several critics have been unpleasantly and
inappropriately sneery about it.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at May 17, 2007 8:55:14 PM
Dear Barkley and others,
Tonight, it seems like the conversation is taking place in two spots. I just posted a comment over at Econlog. Some of it pertains to Barkley's main point.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/05/truth_in_advert.html
But I think I am going to sign off. Let's do it at EJW--with more fullness and deliberation.
Dan
Posted by: Daniel Klein at May 17, 2007 9:39:39 PM
Perhaps my language was uncalled for. It was due to the fact that I was extremely annoyed by what I felt was an unfair representation of some good, and some decent papers from the JET in the article.
Posted by: notsneaky at May 17, 2007 10:19:58 PM
Barkley,
Thanks for your clarifications and discussion. Certainly the K&R article is arousing thought and reasoned debate and I believe that out of further debate, discussion and hopefully more EJW articles will come a clarification regarding the consequences of using long trains of mathematics to attempt to explain economic phenomena. This debate has been going on for a long time; Marshall in 1920 expressed trepidation about the usage of long trains. But the debate,so long devoid of quantification, has generated lots of heat and little light. This is changing because quantitative investigations are possible at lower cost now than in the recent past. Discussions of evidence will bring clarification. Ah, the future is bright.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 18, 2007 12:05:25 PM
