My friend @CorneliusEcon asked me about how I read all the books I buy (i.e. my "Book Harvests") and here is the short answer: I dont! At least, not immediately. And this is actually how I end up reading them. Weird? Here is a thread on reading and research #econtwitter
1st: Buying books is important -- they are a capital good. Books are, however, unlike other capital goods. They last much much much longer and their depreciation rate is low as hell. If you accumulate them, you create a high stock on which you can produce
2nd: Once I buy a book, I read the TOC and the table of content to memorize what it says "broadly speaking". Then I shelf the book.
3rd: When I find something odd, I start writing up the draft of a paper to see if I can make a contribution that helps. My mental map allows me to know where I can find the stuff I need to write and expand.
3rd (Follow-up): For example, I read a footnote in a Quebec history book that explained that a fishing monopoly had emerged in a region and this lead to stable fish stocks in 19th century. I knew I had a book on the economics of property rights and common pool resources
3rd (continued): So, I could assemble the two and see if a contribution could be made. Because I also knew of works (unrelated) on living standards in the region in question, I could check socio-economic outcomes from this arrangement. Hence a paper was born.
4th: Notice that I used three books to start producing a paper that I think can contribute to the literature. But its because I had a huge stock to start on.
This is how you read books when you are an academic. What is particularly crucial here is that when you read something, you often miss key valuable insights just because you cant connect them to other topics.
The mental inventory of books you have creates a mapping of how things could be connected and constructed and thus the process is a constant discovery process of ideas and research. The nicest part about it is that the more you do it, the easier it becomes.
Thread: Now forthcoming in Public Choice: how rent-seeking explains asylum expansion in America between 1870 and 1910 (co-authored with Ray March). #econhist#econtwitter
Few people know that the asylums in American asylums expanded 10x in terms of absolute numbers and close to 4x in per capita terms between 1870 and 1910.
Most works in social history attribute this to broadly defined contemporary understandings of public interest (some of which are less savoury than others). Very few works have tried to see if there was a rent-seeking component. Ray and I argue there was one!
Given the massive drop in JOE listings on the econ JM, here is some source of hope: if you are a candidate that goes into the private sector this year and you apply to return to academia next year, I will take that as a strong signal of your commitment to research #econtwitter
Last year, I did the job market interviews for my university (@kingsatwestern) and it was painful because I had to say "no" to very decent candidates. One of the main deciding factors for us was the commitment to research and teaching abilities.
Sorting research potential is *particularly* hard and so we looked for signals regarding persistence of efforts in the future. Personally, if somebody accepted a job during the market in the private sector and then tried to return, I would see that as a strong signal.
People have heavily debated whether markets/states can/need provide public goods. Essentially, people have debated whether public goods are market failures and (if they are) how frequently do these failure happen.
The most frequently used example is that of the lighthouse which has many characteristics that make it a public good (non-excludable and non-rivalrous).
I do not do rant. But, following @TomPhilipson45's resgination from CEA, many people on #econtwitter have taken digs at the acting chair, Tyler Beck Goodspeed. Why? Because his PhD is not in economics and he has few citations. These are cheap shots!
So let me do what I do best which is to simply state some facts about Goodspeed. Obviously, you can dislike his work. You can dislike his politics. You can dislike who he decided to work for. However, his work as an academic is *off-limits* if you want to say he aint an econ
First, if that is your benchmark, get ready to cross out some big names from the field: Roth, Tullock, Kahneman, Ostrom, Herbert Simon, Nash, David Friedman.
Recently, I was thinking about Joel Mokyr's classic "Why Ireland Starved" which basically argued that overpopulation was not a thing in 19th c. Ireland. Loved that book. I decided to google some follow-ups and found this neat piece in "Land Economics" #econhist#econtwitter
The piece is elegantly simple and instructive. It does a simple econometric trick -- add a land quality index to see if overpopulation (proxied by land/pop ratio) was a thing. The author used pretty simple tools to make the adjustment. jstor.org/stable/3146668…
In the end, he found that there were signs of overpopulation.
People are making a fuss over the Cuba statements of @BernieSanders. Yes, Cuba is a dictatorship but there is good healthcare and good education. Can we sort the wheat from the chaff! The answer is "No" #econtwitter -- lets do the economics of dictatorships here
Dictators are utility-maximizers like you and I. What they maximize is the rents they extract from acquiring and holding on to power. They select the public goods to produce as a willful decision to continue rent extraction jstor.org/stable/4072669…#econtwitter