,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Six weeks ago, I invited the 9 candidates for AEA leadership positions to offer statements on pressing issues in the economics profession, including diversity/inclusion & the publication process.
Response rate, as of today: zero.
There is, of course, an economic explanation...
Response rate, as of today: zero.
There is, of course, an economic explanation...
Economics teaches us that producers profit from imposing scarcity of their product, restricting output and imposing barriers to entry. They gain, would-be competitors and consumers lose.
This is what economists preach. It is also what they practice.
This is what economists preach. It is also what they practice.
Fourcade, Ollion and Algan (2015) document the peculiar economic practice of restricting professional leadership to the top departments. Our leaders are nominated by a committee, themselves drawn predominantly from top departments. Our peer institutions behave very differently. 
(peer *disciplines*) I should have said....
Other social science associations have open calls for nominations and competitive elections that revolve around policies and issues.
The AEA, to date, has steadfastly refused.
The AEA, to date, has steadfastly refused.
This pattern of exclusivity reflects a deep seated worldview, encapsulated in this passage from the work of @undercoverhist regarding MIT in the 1960s, that only the work of a handful of economists truly matters.
The thousands upon thousands of dues-paying economists, from the perspective of those atop the hierarchy, busy themselves with work of no consequence and are chiefly useful as potential employers for disappointing students.
Is it any wonder that this discipline has an inclusivity problem? Any wonder that it has chosen to ratchet up barriers to publication in its most prestigious journals rather than expand to accommodate growth in the profession?
But just as the monopolist has nothing to gain from eliminating barriers to entry and welcoming new competitors, there is very little incentive for those on the "inside" of this system, or who think of themselves as close to being "inside," to advocate for change.
If you, like me, have become skeptical of the ability of this profession to effect change in the context of its existing policies and procedures, here are the instructions from the AEA bylaws:
