Bruno S. Frey, 20 December 2018

China's GNP is close to, or larger than, that of the US and the per-capita income gap between the countries is closing. Despite this, Chinese economists are absent from the rankings of top academic economists and none has received the Nobel Prize in Economics. This column offers several potential reasons for this, and also argues that the situation is likely to change in the future. Young scholars in particular may be well advised to take this into account, as their careers are likely to benefit if they link up to the Chinese academic market.

Chih-Sheng Hsieh, Michael König, Xiaodong Liu, Christian Zimmermann, 26 November 2018

Through collaboration networks, researchers create spillovers for one another, and also other researchers indirectly linked to them. This column leverages co-authorship network data for economics to study the impact of these spillovers on total research output. Taking account of spillovers, the results show that the most productive researchers are not those with the most citations. Current funding schemes appear to be ill-designed to take advantage of the spillover effects generated in scientific knowledge production networks. 

Daniel Sgroi, 11 November 2013

In the upcoming UK Research Excellence Framework, a small panel of academics are tasked with rating thousands of academic submissions, which will result in university departments being ranked and public money being distributed. Given the enormity of the task and the scarcity of the resources devoted to it, this article discusses a straightforward procedure that might help, based on exactly the Bayesian methods that academic economists study and teach when considering the problem of decision-making under uncertainty.

Matthew Kotchen, Matthew Potoski, 24 December 2011

Many spheres of economic activity rely on expert ratings to guide individuals’ choices. An obvious concern arises when evaluators have incentives to distort ratings for private gain. This column uses data from the USA Today Coaches Poll of the top 25 teams in US college football to study whether agents are able to overcome conflicts of interest and provide unbiased rankings. It finds strong evidence that coaches distort rankings for reputation benefits and financial rewards.

Vox eBooks

Events

CEPR Policy Research