RANKING ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS IN TERMS OF RESIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY: NEW ZEALAND ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS, 2000–2006*

This paper utilises a human‐capital approach for ranking the research productivity of academic departments. Our approach provides rankings in terms of residual research output after controlling for the key characteristics of each department's academic staff. More specifically, we estimate residual research output rankings for all of New Zealand's economics departments based on their publication performance over the 2000 to 2006 period. We do so after taking into account the following characteristics of each department's academic staff: gender, experience, seniority, academic credentials and academic rank. The paper demonstrates that the rankings generated by the residual research approach and those generated by traditional approaches to research rankings may be significantly different for some departments. These differences are important in determining the likely efficiency impact of research assessment exercises.     

A Multidimensional Ranking of Australian Economics Departments

This study uses cluster analysis to classify Australian economics departments into groups that have similar quantities of research output, measured by two publication counts, and similar quality of research output, measured by a citation count. Three groups of departments are identified and factor analysis is used to rank the groups. Whether research output is measured in total or on a per staff basis, Melbourne is in the group that ranks first, the remaining members of the 'group of eight' are in one or other of the top two groups, and at least 15 other departments are in the third-ranked group.     

AN EMPIRICAL NOTE ON CRITICAL COMMENTARY IN AUSTRALIAN ECONOMICS JOURNALS

A substantial empirical literature exists on ranking the published research output of individual academic economists and individual university Economics departments, including Australian work in Economics. However, very little corresponding effort has been directed at examining trends in the nature of published articles, and this embryonic literature is exclusively focused on a handful of top-ranked journals to the exclusion of Australian Economics journals. This note seeks to fill this gap by adopting the methodology developed by Coelho et al. (2005) in their analysis of the decline in critical commentary and applying it to Australian Economics journals for the period 1962 to 2005.     

Publication Performance of Economists and Economics Departments in Turkey (1999–2003)

This is the first study evaluating the publication performances of economists and economics departments in Turkey. The international (article) publication performance of Turkish economic departments in general is found to be rather poor. There is a wide gap in particular between the top five universities and the economists affiliated to them and those outside the top five. The paper also provides evidence in favour of private higher education. The publication patterns of economists in Turkey are shown to be similar to those of their counterparts in the rest of the world.     

RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY OF AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC ECONOMISTS: HUMAN‐CAPITAL AND FIXED EFFECTS*

This study investigates why some economics departments in Australian universities are more research productive than others. The hypothesis is simple: research productivity depends upon the human capital of department members and the department‐specific conditions under which they work. A Tobit model is used to estimate the magnitude of the two effects. Both are found to be important. Our results help explain why a small number of departments consistently outperform the others in studies that rank Australian economics departments according to research output.     

Ranking and clustering of the faculties of commerce research performance in Australia

There is a growing policy focus in Australian higher education on quantitative research performance assessment. However, most of the analysis has addressed aggregate performance at the institutional level, an approach inconsistent with recent policy emphasis on diversity among universities and one that ignores performance variations across disciplines. Using averaged and all available data for 2000–2004, cluster analysis is used to classify Australian Commerce Faculties into groups that exhibit similar research performance, measured by publication, PhD completion and secured competitive research grant funding. We also use factor analysis to generate full-multidimensional rankings within the resulting two or three clusters. It is found that in terms of total research output, with the exception of Adelaide all the Group of 8 (Go8) members plus University of Technology, Sydney and Griffith always belong to ‘Clusters A’. However, when research performance is expressed in per academic staff terms, an additional 11 universities join this same cluster. Our results additionally show that eight Australian faculties of Commerce not only possess low total research output but their per capita performance is also poor.     

The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities

In previous research on the impact of the Research AssessmentExercise on heterodox economics and heterodox economists inthe UK, the author concluded that reliance on Diamond List journalsto rank departments would drive economic departments to discriminatepositively in terms of their hiring, promotion and researchstrategies in favour of mainstream economists and their research,in order to maintain or improve their ranking. As a consequence,the author predicted there would be no or only a token presenceof heterodox economists in an increasing number of departments.Whether the conclusions still hold and the predictions materialiseis the subject of the paper.     

Heterodox Economics and its Critics

Heterodox economics has its critics. Most of the criticisms are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. However, the critics and their criticisms that are the concern of this article are the ones that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals and identity. These critics observe that the academic status quo in economics, as manifested in its department and journal rankings, rules of academic engagement, and its institutions and organizations, favor mainstream economics and that it is unlikely to change in the future. Consequently, they argue that heterodox economists can survive only if they become more like mainstream economists. With focus on assimilation, the critics direct their criticisms towards the social characteristics of the heterodox community and to the personal characteristics of heterodox economists. This article is a response to the critics.     

What Australian Economics Professors Think

In this article we present the results of a recent survey of economics professors in Australia. We found that there is a comfortable measure of consensus in many areas of economic science, including several contentious issues which currently worry policymakers and the general public alike. We show that there is good evidence to suggest that Australian academic economists share a world economic culture with their western European and (to an even greater extent) their American colleagues.
We also asked the professors to share their thoughts on university economics education. There was good consensus that the professors wanted a rigorous classical economics education for their students, but they were not willing to sacrifice breadth: the ideal student, it appears, is one technically competent in economics with a head for the social and political dimensions of the profession. Overwhelmingly, the professors voted the economics department of the Australian National University as the best place for such an education, with those of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, and Monash, close behind.
Finally, the professors gave their opinions on the understanding of economics by government agencies, business and community groups.     

Economics Teaching in Australian Universities: Rewards and Outcomes

This paper presents evidence from two surveys to help explain the poor ratings consistently given to the teaching of economics at Australian universities. The evidence suggests that the poor ratings of economics teaching can be attributed to two related factors: inappropriate pedagogical practices and lack of rewards for allocating additional time to teaching. The survey data on pedagogy in economics consist of 205 responses from graduates from two Queensland universities. The time elapsed since graduation ranges from 1 to 10 years. The survey data on academics' time allocation consist of 290 responses from academic economists across a wide range of Australian universities.     

Gender Differences in Research Patterns Among PhD Economists

This study is based on a 1996 survey of PhD economists working in the academic and nonacademic sectors since 1989. Despite a raw gender difference in all types of research output, the male dummy variable proves statistically significant in predicting only one publication measure. In a full sample and faculty subsample, number of years since receipt of PhD, publication in a refereed journal as a graduate student, and the total number of presentations made in professional forums were consistently, positively related to research productivity. The importance of other independent variables varies by research output. Typically unavailable variables such as workload, time use, submissions data, and family circumstances are also examined.     

The Editorial Boards of Italian Economics Journals: Women,Gender, and Social Networking

In Italy, women's advancement in economics has been curtailed by the structure of editorial boards of Italian economics journals. In this paper, we examine the presence of men and women economists on the editorial boards of thirty-six Italian economics journals published since 1970 and analyze the gender distribution across different kinds of boards, roles, and fields. Because boards are hierarchically ordered, women work mostly in the lower positions, and the increase in women's participation has led only to more "editorial secretaries." Since men and women tend to have different scientific interests and men's standards of academic value prevail, women economists cannot build publication records as strong as those of their male colleagues, which, in turn, affects women's hiring, promotion, and wages, as well as the shape of the discipline.     

Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems.     

Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Eagles and Turkeys: Human Capital Externalities,Departmental Co‐authorship and Research Productivity

Lucas (1988) hypothesised that human capital externalities explain persistent productivity growth and become manifest via interactions between workplace colleagues. Consistent with the first part of this hypothesis, Fox and Milbourne (2006) concluded that an increase in the average level of human capital in Australian economics departments raised the research productivity of departmental members. This paper tests the robustness of this finding by using a direct, rather than a proxy, measure of human capital and confirms the existence of human capital externalities within Australian economics departments. But we extend the analysis in two important dimensions. Firstly, we investigate the second part of Lucas' hypothesis by testing whether the externality becomes manifest via co‐authoring. We find no evidence that this type of interaction is associated with higher research productivity, especially for higher quality outputs. Secondly, we control for the likely endogeneity of one's peer group via instrumental variables estimation. In this case, we find that the peer group effect disappears completely for the highest quality outputs but remains for research output more broadly defined.     

IS IT HARDER TO SOAR WITH EAGLES WHEN YOU WORK WITH TURKEYS?*

Lucas (1988) modelled the productivity of workers as being a function not only of their own human capital but the human capital of the people with whom they work. Using individual data, this paper investigates whether there are such human‐capital externalities. In particular, we look at the research output of academic economists, and ask whether research‐output productivity is affected not just by individual human‐capital factors, and institutional and funding factors, but additionally by productivity of those in the same academic department. Our findings are also of relevance to the literature on peer‐group effects and the ‘Bell Curve’ debate.     

"Never Intended to be a Theory Of Everything": Domestic Labor in Neoclassical and Marxian Economics

This article is a comparative study of the treatment of domestic labor by neoclassical and Marxian economists. Before 1960, mainstream economics concentrated on production for the market, with serious analysis of housework confined to a handful of economists, whose efforts in this regard were marginalized by economics departments but supported by departments of home economics. Later mainstream analyses, first in agricultural economics and then in human capital theory, culminated in Gary Becker's "new household economics." Domestic labor was also neglected by Marxist thinkers, who argued that housework was being socialized under capitalism and would disappear altogether under socialism, but it was rediscovered by Marxist-feminists in the late 1960s. Housework continues, however, to pose serious analytical difficulties for both neoclassical and Marxian economists.     

An Institutional Explanation for Economists’ Theoretical and Methodological Choices

Scientific research in general and economics research in particular is a social act. More specifically, schools of economic thought as well as associations, research groups and conferences are expressions of social organizations within the realm of economics. Historically, studies investigating the methodologies used in economics have focused on the strengths of these social organizations. This study aims to analyze the key roles played by individuals within social organizations in building and reinforcing economics and, in turn, their influence on these individuals. To achieve this goal, we use an institutionalist approach in a broad sense. We show how economics as an academic environment can be presented as an institutional entanglement and how an institutionalist approach can enhance an understanding of why economists adopt a particular theoretical and methodological perspective. It is argued that habits, observations and cognitive abilities should be seriously considered to understand the logic and decision making of economic researchers. We discuss also the importance of forming groups in the process of institutionalizing elements relevant to an economic researcher’s logic and decision making and present an interpretation of mainstream economics in terms of the analytical approach of our study.     

Citations of Most Often Cited Economists: Do Scholarly Books Matter More than Quality Journals?

This paper empirically investigates the determinants of citations based on the publication of the top 100 most often cited economists. The effects of publication age and author fame on subsequent citations are found to be positive and significant. Citations are also significantly affected by popular subfields in economics. However, journal quality measures, such as impact factors, download statistics and top‐4 elite journals, have insignificant effects on citations. In contrast, the citation effect of scholarly books is positive and significant, and its impact is even greater than those of journal quality measures.