Thread by @TomValletti

Thread on research in economics & its linkage to policy.

Recent top publications on hot competition policy topics, eg
@jan_eeckhout & al on increasing margins
@joseazar @martincschmalz & al on common ownership
@cunningham_lbs @florianederer @ProfSongMa on killer acquisitions

1/

These papers freaked out corporate interests. Big Pharma, Big Tech, ‘Passive’ Investors (& good chunk of the legal community who’s behind them) reacted, as expected.

As they don’t know what academic research in economics is, they use shills under semi-academic camouflage.

2/

They pay for their own self-serving studies. Funding is opaque, to say the least. In some cases, they attack and harass.

These lobbying (sorry, research) centres don’t publish in any academic meaningful sense. And never will.

3/

(btw, you gotta love Florian’s sense of humour here in response to some of them).

https://twitter.com/florianederer/status/1304929691657269248?s=20

4/

But they produce glossy pamphlets, with very polished words (they know how to write), & often with serious misunderstandings of economics (in fact, very few are written by economists with credentials). But they don’t care: their goal is not to speak to an academic community.

5/

Rather, the goal is to throw smoke and doubt in front of the policy makers. Because they know extremely well how to interact with them.

https://twitter.com/TomValletti/status/1286602155588288512?s=20

6/

This is an old strategy of course. Think of Big Tobacco or climate change. There is even a term for this: “agnotology”.

https://twitter.com/tomvalletti/status/1081622930558197761?lang=en

7/

A couple of conclusions for the academics.

To the extent you are interested in policy (you may not be, which is fine of course), you need to think how to write your papers. Possibly, next to the academic piece, try to have a policy piece where you explain to policy makers.

8/

Alas this does not give you academic credit, but will have impact. Strike a balance.

You thought of a topic for 5 years, if not more: On balance, where do you stand? Uncertainty is inherent in policy. But it’s not a justification for inaction.

9/

“We need more research” is ok in academic writing. But it’s a *death sentence* in policy: it means the status quo will not change – don’t be naïve. If on balance you think A is 70% likely, that’s probably enough to go ahead. Waiting for 100% is too late for policy.

10/

Acknowledge this. Surface the uncertainties: This is what we know; what we don’t yet know; what we’ll likely never know. Live with that & say where *you* stay. Of course revisit plans as new evidence emerges.

Then there are the policy makers.

11/

They are very risk averse as they fear the courts. They speak a lot to corporations & consultants, almost never to academics. They don’t know how to tell the difference between a top publication & a funded WP paper put on ssrn. Revolving doors with the shills are plenty.

12/

But most enforcers are really well motivated to do the right thing. You need to *help them* with clean arguments, with evidence, with precedents.

Our brains are our greatest asset. Keep doing great research, y’all!

Ciao/FIN