Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
wyclif.substack.com
Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#2>The research industry
I see this as an oxymoron, it's the kind of scenario that makes for bad science such that no amount of incentinves, discincentives, and/or "metrics" can fix.
From "research industry" I get the idea that they want industrial-scale scientific production. Industrial activities are all about roughly predictable outcomes and mostly steady productivity output.
On the other hand scientific research seeking real novelty is---because of the novelty, very unpredictable. So when I read "research industry" I think they refer to "industrial novelty-seeking".
I can imagine somebody saying "we need 10 completely, gound-breaking scientific research articles peer-reviewed every quarter for publication!"
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#3>The research industry I see this as an oxymoron, it's the kind of scenario that makes for bad science such that no amount of incentinves, discincentives, and/or "metrics" can fix. From "research industry" I get the idea that they want industrial-scale scientific production. Industrial activities are all about roughly predictable outcomes and mostly steady productivity output. On the other hand scientific research se…
It seems you are thinking of industry as one might use the term "heavy industry" or "industrial manufacturing". It is also valid to speak of people being industrious or laboring for purpose in a similar manner. For example laboring with their attention and experiments on better understanding the world we live in. In other words, the research industry.
Sadly, would you imagine being said is a bit of what the incentives appear to demand. The "publish or perish" phrase is just one popular reference to that.
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#4>The research industry I see this as an oxymoron, it's the kind of scenario that makes for bad science such that no amount of incentinves, discincentives, and/or "metrics" can fix. From "research industry" I get the idea that they want industrial-scale scientific production. Industrial activities are all about roughly predictable outcomes and mostly steady productivity output. On the other hand scientific research se…
[deleted]
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#5>The research industry I see this as an oxymoron, it's the kind of scenario that makes for bad science such that no amount of incentinves, discincentives, and/or "metrics" can fix. From "research industry" I get the idea that they want industrial-scale scientific production. Industrial activities are all about roughly predictable outcomes and mostly steady productivity output. On the other hand scientific research se…
It seems you are thinking of industry as one might use the term "heavy industry" or "industrial manufacturing". It is also valid to speak of people being industrious or laboring for purpose in a similar manner. For example laboring with their attention and experiments on better understanding the world we live in. In other words, the research industry. Sadly, would you imagine being said is a bit of what the incentive…
perish? or is this some theory of leaving academia for the cloth?
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#6it is probably a step backward that submitted articles no longer get anonymized in many journals. The logic behind this was that reviewers would know, or look up, the author anyway. In effect this was giving in to corruption.
I completely agree that this is a terrible change. Of course, reviewers are often able to work out whose work something is. Even before widespread preprints on the web, citations were often a giveaway.
But plenty of reviewers won’t do it, on principle, and even for those that do, that fact that they’re obviously not meant to know is a very strong signal that they shouldn’t take it into account in their decision.
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#7> We should stop trying to pay for good work, and instead, try to hire people who like doing good work and damn the pay. This is in line with the traditional folk wisdom of Cambridge: “hire good people and let them get on with it”.
> Lastly, to make the economists less greedy, they should be paid less.
Ha, I needed a good chuckle in the morning. I'll be damned if I accept a job where they except high-quality work for pennies. From my conversations, my colleagues share this sentiment. Also, comparing a (severely underpaid for the work they do) post-doc's salary to global income and saying they're doing fine is a bit disingenuous. -phd candidate in applied econ.
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you are thinking of industry as one might use the term "heavy industry" or "industrial manufacturing". It is also valid to speak of people being industrious or laboring for purpose in a similar manner. For example laboring with their attention and experiments on better understanding the world we live in. In other words, the research industry. Sadly, would you imagine being said is a bit of what the incentive…
perish? or is this some theory of leaving academia for the cloth?
It's too bad that we don't have research positions similar to parish priest postings.
We could assign enthusiastic researchers to underserved primary/secondary school teaching positions relevant to their field. In exchange, the researchers could get an extra stipend and a classroom to use as off-hours lab space.
I guess the hard part would be setting up a good network of remote advisors to help everyone stay on track, without enabling the usual toxic power dynamics of academia.
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you are thinking of industry as one might use the term "heavy industry" or "industrial manufacturing". It is also valid to speak of people being industrious or laboring for purpose in a similar manner. For example laboring with their attention and experiments on better understanding the world we live in. In other words, the research industry. Sadly, would you imagine being said is a bit of what the incentive…
perish? or is this some theory of leaving academia for the cloth?
Indeed :D
Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?
#10> We should stop trying to pay for good work, and instead, try to hire people who like doing good work and damn the pay. This is in line with the traditional folk wisdom of Cambridge: “hire good people and let them get on with it”. > Lastly, to make the economists less greedy, they should be paid less. Ha, I needed a good chuckle in the morning. I'll be damned if I accept a job where they except high-quality work for…
> to make economists less greedy they should be paid less
How about we tax billionaires, and pay our academics real wages?
I was an academic once, and I made near minimum wage. It's insane to set up a reward structure that punishes thinking people and rewards the randomness of birth.