Academic Economics:

Playing Numbers While the World Burns

I found this on a social media platform. It adds to my frustration with a discipline that I think has lost its way.

“Last year, I ranked among the top 8% of academic economists in (REDACTED). I am very happy to report that this year, I am ranked in the top 5% in terms of most publications in the last decade. According to REPEC, I also rank among the top 10% in the world.”

The focus on rankings creates perverse incentives in academia. Researchers prioritise quantity over quality of publications, chase "hot" topics rather than important but less fashionable research areas and are less inclined to spend time on valuable but unmeasured activities like mentoring or service work.

Image: Stephanie Whalley

Troubling behaviour

This situation is particularly troubling in economics because the discipline's fundamental purpose is to understand human behaviour, market dynamics, and how to improve societal welfare. When academics become overly focused on their publication metrics, several harmful consequences emerge:

First, researchers tend to gravitate toward "publishable" topics rather than addressing pressing real-world economic challenges. For instance, they might choose to write another paper on an established theoretical model because it's more likely to be published quickly, rather than tackling complex issues like inequality or environmental economics that might take longer to research but could have more significant societal impact.

Second, this self-referential culture can create an echo chamber where economists primarily write for other economists, using increasingly specialised language and methods that become disconnected from practical applications. This makes economic research less accessible and less useful to policymakers, business leaders, and the general public who could benefit from economic insights.

Third, and perhaps most concerning, is how this shapes the next generation of economists. Young scholars, seeing that career advancement depends heavily on these metrics, begin to view their research not as a means to understand and improve economic systems, but primarily as a vehicle for personal advancement.

Young Scholars

When established academics showcase their success primarily through metrics like publication rankings and citation counts, they implicitly signal to younger scholars that this is the path to recognition and career advancement. This creates a "metrics arms race" in academia. Academic metrics like publication counts and rankings, while quantifiable, capture only a narrow slice of what makes someone valuable in their field or as a colleague. They don't reflect important qualities like:

· The real-world impact of one's research on society and human welfare

· The ability to mentor students and junior colleagues effectively

· Willingness to collaborate and support others in the field

· Ethics and integrity in research practices

· Contribution to a positive departmental culture

· Ability to communicate complex ideas to diverse audiences

Giants and Dwarfs

For transparency, I should note that I sit at the lower end of these conventional metrics. But my frustration isn't about personal standing - it's about watching a noble discipline lose its way. Economics was built by towering intellectuals like Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Veblen, and W. Arthur Lewis who all engaged with the fundamental questions of human society: how wealth is created and distributed, how markets shape human behaviour, and how economic systems can serve the greater good. They weren't concerned with publication rankings or citation counts; they were driven by an urgent desire to understand and improve the human condition. Today, we have replaced giants with dwarfs who are trained and skilled in the art of self-aggrandisement.