Professor Pete Boettke writes:
Gregory Mankiw has an insightful discussion on why our excitement in learning economics for the first time often times translates into disappointment as we become professional economists. He argues that there are four basic reasons: (1) diminishing returns --- the earlier economists were able to tackle the juicy low hanging fruit in terms of ideas, but economists today have to stretch farther to get some fruit; (2) stock versus flow --- teaching is based on the stock of existing knowledge in economics which includes all that low hanging fruit while conferences reflect the flow of new learning, which is necessarily thin; (3) selection --- textbooks and courses are based on the best ideas from the past, conferences are based on new ideas most of which will be quickly forgotten; and (4) motivation of researchers must be accounted for --- cannot assume it is about truth and improving the world, the most important motivation in modern academic life might be to impress one's peers with technical mastery and the sort of behaviors associated with this cleverness game are different from the ones associated with being a master teacher.
I agree with Mankiw completely. But as I have argued in my 2001 address to the SDAE, this stock versus flow point about information and knowledge is under-appreciated and the value of thee discovery of new knowledge within the flow is often misunderstood.
Professor Rowley was commenting on a similar theme the other night, encouraging us grad students to focus on research areas that have not been well "mined" yet. These areas face the least academic competition for publishing papers and give the best opportunities for high yield research. Three fields he recommended considering were Economics of Religion, Law and Economics, and Public Choice. Those just happen to be the three areas I'm currently focusing on.
No comments:
Post a Comment