The hierarchy in economics and its implications

Abstract

This paper argues for two propositions. (I) Large asymmetries of power, status and influence exist between economists. These asymmetries constitute a hierarchy that is steeper than it could be and steeper than hierarchies in other disciplines. (II) This situation has potentially significant epistemic consequences. I collect data on the social organization of economics to show (I). I then argue that the hierarchy in economics heightens conservative selection biases, restricts criticism between economists and disincentivizes the development of novel research. These factors together constrain economics’ capacity to develop new beliefs and reduce the likelihood that its outputs will be true.

Human Capital, Networks and Segmentation in the Market for Academic Economists

“…These results are consistent with an earlier work by Kim et al (2009) and arguments made in a new study by Wright (2023). They assert that most of the productivity gains that elite universities historically provided have dissipated due to changes in communications technology (Kim et al 2009;Wright 2023).…”

“…They also report that doctoral program graduates of equal percentile rank from certain lower-ranked departments have stronger publication records than their counterparts at higher-ranked departments (Conley and Önder 2014). These results are consistent with an earlier work by Kim et al (2009) and arguments made in a new study by Wright (2023). They assert that most of the productivity gains that elite universities historically provided have dissipated due to changes in communications technology (Kim et al 2009;Wright 2023).…”

“…In an update, Heckman and Moktan (2020) found that between 2000 and 2016, about 12 percent of the papers in the American Economic Review and about 25 percent of the papers in the Quarterly Journal of Economics had at least one author affiliated with Harvard University. 5 Lastly, Wright (2023) discusses the research indicating that the alma mater rankings are statistically significant predictors of the likelihood of publishing in the top five journals.…”

“…These problems mean that smaller and lesser-known academic departments typically fill faculty vacancies with candidates holding doctoral degrees from universities ranked near the median. Given the labor market and other networks fostered by academic departments at prominent universities (Heckman and Moktan 2020;Wright 2023), and the difficulties in hiring faculty from top-tier institutions faced by academic departments at universities ranked near the median (Yuret 2018;Segall and Feldman 2019), there is typically little change in the various rankings of academic departments. This type of stability is often supported by relatively large and significant correlation coefficients produced in studies that compare various rankings of departments (e.g., see Faria et al 2016;Qian et al 2016;Mixon and Upadhyaya 2022a).…”

“…It is worth stressing, as discussed above, that the most prominent academic journals are usually edited (i.e., managed) by faculty who are affiliated with the top academic departments (Colussi 2018;Wright 2023). This generally benefits graduates from these departments, and these network effects facilitate the hiring of these newly minted PhDs by top academic departments (Heckman and Moktan 2020;Wright 2023). The network effects are captured in the model by assuming that publications and citations are increasing functions of N. 8 Therefore, the reputational effects are a function of N as follows:…”