Felix writes*
Economists have long defended the benefits of fair competition, explaining that it makes markets more efficient, increases innovation, and generates more benefits for consumers. It’s therefore surprising to see a lack of competition in academic economics, where the same few universities collect titles, honors and influence for their research.
How loyal are economists to their principles, when their professional interests are at stake?
Richard B. Freeman, Danxia Xie, Hanzhe Zhang & Hanzhang Zhou studied the concentration of award-winning academics across institutions, and concluded that across “18 major academic fields in the natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences,” economics was the only discipline that was evolving towards a more clustered knowledge and centralized institutional system, going against the other disciplines leaning towards decentralization.
Indeed, their study shows that prestigious awards such as the Nobel Prize are disproportionately given to academics linked or directly working with a few universities, including the University of Chicago, Harvard, or MIT.
The paper suggests that a reason for that could be the importance of prestige in the field of economics, where a debate between two points of view or theories is influenced by high status individuals and the reputation of their institutions. Most importantly, this concentration is problematic because it prevents diversity of thoughts, fosters “club mentality” and overall limits new challenging perspectives from emerging scholars (The Guardian, 2024).
In theory, academia should be a meritocracy where the best research rises to the top, pushed by its own quality. In practice, the structure of academic economics does not look like a fair market, it rather looks like a winner-takes-all market where power is concentrated among a few key players. The LSE Impact Blog argues that academics have internalized a hyper- competitive system where success is almost only defined by publication in a small set of high-impact journals, mostly controlled by scholars from elite institutions. This dynamic leads to an inefficient situation where many economists spend more time “playing the game” rather than engaging in genuine intellectual exploration.
This lack of genuine competition in an academic field encourages unethical behavior. A study discussed by the LSE on “scientific misbehavior in economics” found that many economists admit to engaging in “dishonest” behavior: manipulating journal rankings, favoring insiders in hiring and promotions, and even suppressing opposing research. Again, the main reason of that is the common and constant pressure to publish.
Moreover, a survey on academic ethics showed that nepotism, through publication bias, and exclusionary practices are widespread in economics. For instance, senior economists at high-ranked universities have significant control over publication decisions, invitations to conferences, and career opportunities (List et al., 2015).
Bottom line: The excessive clustering of awarded academics and the nepotist practices present in the economic discipline goes against the virtuous competition economists call for. It impoverishes the quality of academic research and increases pressure on economists to publish without integrity.
* Please help my Applied microeconomics students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂
It is interesting, yet disappointing to see how much elite privileges and nepotism affect meritocracy in economic academia. Unsurprisingly, the disparities are not only across affiliation with different academic institutions but also between genders. This article (https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/gender-gaps-among-scholars-economics-analysis-across-cohorts#footnote1_uoas80j) shows that there is a widening gap between the quota of women working in economics and the relative frequency of their publications in the “top-five” journals (American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics and Review of Economic Studies): male scholars are overrepresented in those most prominent journals. Moreover, among female economic scholars, an increasing percentage works and publishes in the fields of public economics, health economics, labor economics, and development, while the share engaging with microeconomics, macroeconomics, finance, and econometrics has been decreasing. The article also syntheses how female scholars in economics systematically publish fewer articles than their male peers, mostly due to the shorter length of their publishing career. The reason could be their tendency to focus on other activities such as teaching. How much do personal attitudes and preferences explain those variations? Or is systematic discrimination preventing deserving female scholars from entering the non-competitive, winner-takes-all market of economic academic publication?
Wow very interesting Felix. I was not aware that there was such a lack of “fair competition” within the field of economics. As you also mentioned it is funny that this situation exists in a field where most if not all people advocate for “competition” to develop and improve “things”. But I guess status is more important for economists. It reminded me of the saying “it’s not what you know but who you know”…
Thank you for your comment Demir, but I also think this paradox and hypocrisy can be explained with economic concepts, mostly game theory, where everyone has an interest in cheating the system if everyone else is honest, but it ends up destroying the trust that people have in that system, thus going against the interests of everyone. It also reminds me of the saying “do what I say not what I do.”
Thank you for this insightful blog post, Felix. It is important to discuss these underlying features of economic research, especially if we argue for certain theories in politics and big corporations.
The lack of accessibility and the dominance of a few institutions remind me of an oligopoly. But it also echoes Douglass North’s framework of Open Access Orders (OAO) and Limited Access Orders (LAO). While economists advocate for OAO principles (competition, meritocracy, and innovation) they seem content with an LAO structure in their own field, where prestige acts as a barrier to entry, and a small elite extracts disproportionate influence.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Is economics truly about efficiency and open competition, or is it just about supporting another system where power protects itself?
Hey Sarah thank you for your comment, I agree that the economic discipline in academic corresponds more than the other disciplines to an LAO framework, however I think that on one side economics uses efficiency and open competition as assumptions in order to represent a more complex reality with models, frameworks and curves etc.. In my opinion, not allowing to assume “symmetrical information” or “perfect competition” etc would prevent anyone from explaining certain societal phenomenon because “everything always depends on so many things.” This is why I understand why economists defend the role of competition in incentivizing for progress and more efficiency. On the other hand, I think defending the validity of these assumptions often make these economists, consciously or not, close their eyes on quite obvious market inefficiencies, such as the state of their own discipline. Keep in mind, everything here is purely my opinion and based on subjective observations.
Felix:
If I had received a Masters from the University of Chicago rather than Loyola University of Chicago, my tenure in the world of economics, supply chain and other disciplines would have been different, Name brand does more in the beginning for a new person just starting to work or teach. Much of my background is in doing and not in teaching as I was working and going to school at night.
Would I have like to teach, yes. Did I enjoy working and applying my knowledge, yes. In the end, you are judged on what you can actually do. I performed quite well during recessions and economic highs. I believe what you may want to decide is . . . “what direction do I really want to ogo in.”
Good luck in deciding.
Bill
Hello Bill thank you for sharing your experience, honestly I do not think that I will want to work as an academic, the feedbacks from teachers in real life and online depicted a very pressured atmosphere in which being published is more than necessary. Being able to get rewarded for whatever I’ll do, both in terms of money and respect, is what I hope for, regardless of the opinion of others, especially the people not directly involved in my projects.
Again thank you for your comment.