Showing posts with label academic economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic economics. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

AEA announces changes in how journals will be produced, financed and distributed

Yesterday's AEA Member Announcements include some substantial changes in how the AEA journals will be produced, distributed, and financed.

The AEA will phase out print journals over the next year by no longer offering print subscriptions for members and institutional subscribers as of February 1.  Existing print subscriptions for members and institutions will be honored through January 2025 but will be unable to be renewed.

In line with most other leading journals, the AEA will end payments to referees for reviews invited on or after February 1.

Collecting publication fees from those benefiting most from the AEA publications program distributes costs of the program more equitably than raising submission fees. With this in mind, the AEA will implement a page charge of $15 per typeset page for published articles submitted after February 1, to be paid by authors, and with provisions to waive the fee under certain circumstances. This page charge will not apply to formally solicited manuscripts (such as Presidential addresses) and will not include articles in the Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Economic Perspectives, or AEA Papers and Proceedings.   

###########

I wasn't party to these discussions, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone mentioned that per-page charges will feel anachronistic once print journals are no longer produced.  But maybe they will be a mild incentive for brevity (as would per-word charges, which might however inadvertently incentivize sesquipedaleanism).

Monday, January 15, 2024

Matching and market design in the latest GEB (stack overflow...)

 The current (January 2024) issue of Games and Economic Behavior presents an increasingly common dilemma (faced by scholars in burgeoning fields, and maybe by aging scholars...). Papers I should read are being written much faster than I can read them.

Here are 9 papers in that issue that are pretty clearly about matching and market design (which leaves out some papers on auctions and one on unraveling of the timing of markets) :

  1. Obvious manipulations of tops-only voting rules

    Pages 12-24
    View PDF
  2. Rejection-proof mechanisms for multi-agent kidney exchange

    Pages 25-50
    View PDF

Friday, December 29, 2023

Price discovery

 Here's SMBC on price discovery:

 

Mouseover: "Normal People: you economists keep assuming humans have perfect pricing information Microeconomists: we need ever more complex auction mechanisms to suss out the true preferences humans are constantly hiding!" 

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Experimental economics, in Economics textbooks

 Here's a paper surveying introductory economics textbooks for statements (or lack of statements) about experimental economics, over fifty years. (That's just about the period  in which I've been doing experiments, since starting a long collaboration with the late Keith Murnighan  when we were both new assistant professors at the U of I in 1974, although in fact the article covers 1970-2019.)  Note from the figure below that textbooks lag not just the progress of science, but even its widespread recognition: Kahneman and Smith won their Nobel for experiments in 2002.

Changing perceptions about experimentation in economics: 50 years of evidence from principles textbooks, by Saileshsingh Gunessee and Tom Lane, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Volume 107, December 2023.

"Abstract: Traditionally, economists often argued experiments play little or no useful role in our science. This paper employs a novel approach to track the historical evolution of this doctrine from 1970 to 2019, by constructing a dataset of 278 introductory economics textbooks. Quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that anti-experimental views were dominant and largely unchanged until 2000, but there has since been a trend towards textbooks making positive statements about experimentation. However, remarks that economic experiments are impossible have been (almost) eliminated only in the last decade, evidencing a sluggish change in perceptions. Supplementary interviews with key textbook authors confirm the historical trend of increased enthusiasm towards experiments, and suggest they are now accepted within the economic mainstream. Our findings hold important implications for how the empirical methodology of economics is understood by practitioners and students."

Based on the introductory chapter of each textbook, they "classified the book's position on economic experiments into one of five categories:

"1. The book's introduction states that doing experiments in economics is impossible, or that economic experiments are never done (hereafter, Impossible/Not Done).

"2. The book's introduction states that doing experiments in economics is difficult, or that economic experiments are rare (hereafter, Difficult/Rare).

"3. The book's introduction states that experiments are done in economics, or refers to economic experiments without mentioning their being rare or any difficulties involved in conducting them (hereafter, Done).

"4. The book's introduction does not mention experimentation in economics (hereafter, No Mention).9


"5. The book does not contain an introductory section (hereafter, No Intro)."



Saturday, December 9, 2023

JOE Job Openings for Economists: 2023 versus the past 4 years

 Here's the latest note on the job market from the AEA's  Committee on the Job Market.  It reflects a tight job market (but may also reflect that fewer than 100% of available jobs are published in the JOE, and this may be in flux). The full memo is at the link below, and I'm summarizing here some of the highlights (trigger warning:(

JOE Job Openings by Sector, 2023 versus the past 4 years 

"To: Members of the American Economic Association

From: AEA Committee on the Job Market: John Cawley (chair), Matt Gentzkow, Brooke Helppie-McFall, Al Roth, Peter Rousseau, and Wendy Stock  Date: December 8, 2023

This memo reports the cumulative number of unique job openings on Job Openings for Economists (JOE), by sector and week, compared to the same week in recent years.

Some clarifications on the data and graphs in this memo:

• ...

• The data described in this memo cover ISO weeks 1 through 48, which in 2023 ended December 3.

• The counts that are graphed and discussed are the number of job openings. To clarify, it is not the number of job listings; a listing may include multiple openings.

• ...

• On each graph, the year-to-date cumulative number of job openings is listed for the past five years separately: 2019-2023. The graphs are shown below, overall and by sector. 

Figure 1 (on p. 3) shows the total number of job openings in 2023, compared to recent years. As of the end of week 48, there have been 2,924 jobs listed on JOE since the beginning of 2023, which is 14.7% lower than at the same week in 2022, 8.7% lower than the same week in 2021, 21.9% higher than the same week in 2020 (the worst COVID year), and 15.9% lower than the same week in 2019, the last pre- COVID year.

Subsequent graphs compare the number of job openings separately by sector. Figure 2 shows that 741 full-time academic positions in the U.S. have been listed on JOE so far in 2023; this is 16.5% lower than at the same week in 2022, 0.4% lower than at the same week in 2021, 109.3% higher than at the same week in 2020, and 8.2% lower than the same week in 2019 - see p. 4.

Figure 4 shows that 949 full-time academic job openings in institutions outside the U.S. have been listed on JOE so far in 2023; that is 7.2% lower than at the same week in 2022, 9.5% lower than the same week in 2021, 11.1% higher than at the same week in 2020, and 16.7% lower than the same week in 2019 - see p. 6.

Figure 6 shows that 508 full-time non-academic positions (in the U.S. or abroad) have been listed on JOE so far in 2023; that is 26.8% lower than at the same week in 2022, 30.0% lower than at the same week in 2021, 18.2% lower than the same time in 2020 and 35.4% lower than the same week in 2019 - see p. 8.

Over the past four years, roughly 92% of the calendar year’s job listings have been posted by the end of November. In January 2024, we will post a year-end report that includes the final numbers for 2023.

The AEA Executive Committee and the Committee on the Job Market provide the following guidance for the job market, to ensure common expectations, fairness, and a thick job market. This guidance concerns the timing of interview invitations, the interviews themselves, and exploding job offers.

...






Sunday, November 26, 2023

Interview with Vernon L. Smith by Sami Al-Suwailem

 Here's an interview with Vernon Smith, in which he comments on the history of economics and his place in it.

Interview with Vernon L. Smith by Sami Al-Suwailem 

"Smith was born in 1927 in Wichita, Kansas. He received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at Caltech in 1949, an M.A. in economics from the University of Kansas, and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1955.

...

"GL: In your recent book, Economics of Markets, coauthored with Sabiou Inoua, you argue (convincingly, I’d say) that “markets succeeded where theory failed.” Does that imply that economic (neoclassical) theory failed to study real-world markets well enough?

"VS: It’s more that they failed to study them at all and, in particular, failed to model price formation or price discovery in market processes.

...

"Walras not only failed to model price discovery but gave us a mechanism that required price mysteriously to be given, then used to model price change depending on the sign of excess demand. This diverted theorists from modeling price discovery and, we believe, created the illusion of progress, but it was more appropriately considered a regress occasioned by marginal analysis, which helped not a wit to address the fundamental task.

...

"GL: In your work, you argue that competitive equilibrium can be quickly achieved under very reasonable experimental conditions for consumption goods, but that this is not the case for assets where speculation may substantially distort the outcomes. Economic theory seems to pay no attention to this important difference. Why is that?

"VS: It is because standard theory tends to be insensitive to close observation: Item A is purchased in preference to item B if and only if U(A) > U(B), a theory that makes no advance prediction but rather concludes only that if A is bought rather than B it must have had higher utility value.

...

"In consumer markets, buyers attempt to buy cheap, constrained by their maximum wtp private value. Sellers try to sell dear but are limited by their minimum willingness-to-accept (wta) costs.

"The problem with asset markets is that they have a value-in-use like any consumer good but also a value-in-resale. This sets up a conflict that has to get resolved before an asset market can settle into any sort of equilibrium.

"All economic stability arises in consumer markets, while all instability arises in asset markets for re-tradable goods. Fortunately, about 75% of private products cannot be re-traded, causing great stability.

"GL: The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded in 2012 to Lloyd S. Shapley and Alvin Roth for their work on market design. How do you see the relationship between these two branches, market design and experimental economics?

"VS: They are closely and intimately related. Indeed, my work in market design was part of my recognition in 2002, and was part of my presentation in 2001 at the Nobel Conference on Experiments in Economics, the year prior to the award."

Saturday, November 25, 2023

Memorial service for Vic Fuchs

 Yesterday, at Etz Chayim Synagogue,  Palo Alto.


Here is my brief eulogy:

Vic was the patriarch of a clan, and a man of wide and old friendships. He was, by the way, also a brilliant, erudite, compassionate economist.

Emilie and I were among his new friends. In 2013 we bought a house down the hill from Vic, and held an open house; he came over, carrying his own chair-back, and was the life of the party.  In those days he used to reply to questions about how he was doing with a joke: “I’m in perfect health—my psychiatrist says it’s all in my body.”

That joke got less funny as his body continued to betray him, and after a while he stopped telling it.

When he joined us for dinner, he and Emilie would negotiate the menu. (He was a fussy eater, who liked his food very plain).

In 2016, when Vic joined us to watch one of the debates among Democratic primary candidates for president, he couldn’t contain himself when they discussed health care, and I gave him a lift home before the debate concluded, so he could write an op-ed. He was still in the game.

During Covid, he stopped leaving his house except to go to the doctor. As his mobility declined, our visits migrated from his patio, to the downstairs living room, and eventually up the half flight of stairs to his office.

Vic’s mind remained sharp. We were able to visit him until about a month before he passed away. He was worried about the world, but still eager to hear jokes, and to tell them.

He was a role model, and a pleasure to spend time with.  

Vic was a man of many parts, and his life was full of accomplishments, admirers, family and friends for whom his memory will be a blessing.



Sunday, September 17, 2023

Friday, November 3, 2023

Jobs for economists, so far this year

Here's a preliminary AEA memo on the job market.

"To: Members of the American Economic Association 

From: AEA Committee on the Job Market: John Cawley (chair), Matt Gentzkow, Brooke Helppie-McFall, Al Roth, Peter Rousseau, and Wendy Stock

Date: October 26, 2023

Re: JOE job openings by sector, 2023 versus the past 4 years

This memo reports the cumulative number of unique job openings on Job Openings for Economists (JOE), by sector and week, compared to the same week in recent years.

...

"Figure 1 (on p. 3) shows the total number of job openings in 2023, compared to recent years. As of the end of week 41, there have been 2,006 jobs listed on JOE since the beginning of 2023, which is 13.2% lower than at the same time in 2022, roughly the same (-0.10% lower) as in 2021, 51.3% higher than this time in 2020 (the worst COVID year), and 13.2% lower than 2019, the last pre-COVID year. 




"Our committee cautions that the largest number of listings in JOE occur in October and November, so by early December we’ll have a much better sense of the job market for Ph.D. economists.
...
"Further updates regarding the job market for Ph.D. economists will be posted to the Committee’s