part of the explanation, in my view, is that the sociology of econ that Fourcade describes so well has calcified, become sclerotic -- that CS is taking more of the best human capital, and that Economists are wasting more and more of their total effort on their internal signalling game. This could bite in academic hiring if deans etc realize that economists are very expensive and no longer as central to overall university prestige https://kevinmunger.substack.com/p/wither-economics
This “The expanding 20th century American state needed a source of technocratic expertise in economic governance, and academic economists happened to elbow out the other contenders—the lawyers, the businesspeople, the political scientists, the sociologists—to supply it. Put simply, nothing says that the economic policy has to be made by professors.” is a very good point. In Germany (my home country) government departments etc. tend to be dominated by lawyers. In the UK - where I live - it looks more like the US, although, for example, PPE has a hold on prime ministers.
Great piece. The negative shocks of this administration and economy make it hard to tell whether 23-24 is a trend or aberration. Certainly much of the shortfall from the next few years will be temporary. The question is how much of this is a secular trend. Would be interesting to see the source of shortfall in 23-24 (TT top/non-top, private sector, govt, etc), eg, demographic cliff should affect mostly academic jobs.
Maybe it should be not so shocking that the journal from the only not clearly left-of-center program (Chicago) is the highest quality?
Maybe part of the lower demand comes from the fact that economists have become more leftist political in what they do than they used to be?
That despite the increased left virtue signaling from corporate America, maybe what they *actually* value is value-added, not political signaling?
I do pose these as questions, because I don’t actually know.
But I find it telling that someone with a background in economics is hoping for higher government spending as the answer to economists’ well-being. And seemingly not cognizant of how much higher government spending is than it was 8 or 20 years ago…
Excellent piece.
On elitism in the US econ profession, see also “Who runs the AEA?” by K. Hoover and A. Svorencik in the J. of Economic Literature, 2023.
part of the explanation, in my view, is that the sociology of econ that Fourcade describes so well has calcified, become sclerotic -- that CS is taking more of the best human capital, and that Economists are wasting more and more of their total effort on their internal signalling game. This could bite in academic hiring if deans etc realize that economists are very expensive and no longer as central to overall university prestige https://kevinmunger.substack.com/p/wither-economics
This “The expanding 20th century American state needed a source of technocratic expertise in economic governance, and academic economists happened to elbow out the other contenders—the lawyers, the businesspeople, the political scientists, the sociologists—to supply it. Put simply, nothing says that the economic policy has to be made by professors.” is a very good point. In Germany (my home country) government departments etc. tend to be dominated by lawyers. In the UK - where I live - it looks more like the US, although, for example, PPE has a hold on prime ministers.
Excellent piece.
Great piece. The negative shocks of this administration and economy make it hard to tell whether 23-24 is a trend or aberration. Certainly much of the shortfall from the next few years will be temporary. The question is how much of this is a secular trend. Would be interesting to see the source of shortfall in 23-24 (TT top/non-top, private sector, govt, etc), eg, demographic cliff should affect mostly academic jobs.
Maybe it should be not so shocking that the journal from the only not clearly left-of-center program (Chicago) is the highest quality?
Maybe part of the lower demand comes from the fact that economists have become more leftist political in what they do than they used to be?
That despite the increased left virtue signaling from corporate America, maybe what they *actually* value is value-added, not political signaling?
I do pose these as questions, because I don’t actually know.
But I find it telling that someone with a background in economics is hoping for higher government spending as the answer to economists’ well-being. And seemingly not cognizant of how much higher government spending is than it was 8 or 20 years ago…
Well if that doesn't make want to jump off a bridge...