Good news day!

Two big pieces of news for me today. This morning I got the first physical copy of my book Economics in Two Lessons.

Then, I got the news that, for the first time in my career, I’ve had an article accepted in Econometrica, the top theoretical journal in economics. It’s full of arcane maths, drawing heavily on the expertise of my co-author Ani Guerdjikova, but the key implication is simple. If people aren’t equally good at predicting movements in asset prices, restrictions on the set of assets available to them may improve economic welfare. This undermines the general presumption that financial deregulation will be beneficial.

All in all, a good day!

28 thoughts on “Good news day!

  1. Congrats Q.
    For my part I only became interested in economics when I had to ,when I realised it was being used as a weapon .The field is so heavily ideological ,not a pure science at all. Non economic type starting assumptions differ wildly amongst rivals in the field.

  2. Congrats. Aside: do your chances of getting a paper accepted by a high-status journal depend only on the perceived merits of the piece – advanced mathematics, relevance to ongoing controversies, occasionally relevance to policy – or also on the status and notoriety of the authors? Has any such journal tried anonymising the authors for selection and peer review? It would appear simple to carry out a random trial using alternating issues of the same journal. I understand there are documented issues of gender bias in academic publishing, but the fairness problem is wider than that.

  3. To answer James, it varies. Some top journals – particularly those of the AEA (American Economic Association) have a name for allowing – ahem – sociological factors to enter their decision process. As a consequence of the Reinhart and Rogoff scandal of a few years ago, where a very influential (on policy) but extraordinarily shoddy article appeared, these journals have suffered reputational damage. But most of the top ones do proper blind selection and review – certainly Econometrica would.

    The usual criticism of most such journals’ selection process is that they put too much weight on mathematical innovation and not enough on policy relevance, but John’s paper has plenty of obvious policy relevance (I assume John was inspired by debates over superannuation “choice”).

    Of course in very specialised fields blind selection and review is impossible, because there are too few people in the field for a submitted paper to remain blind. But I don’t think this applies to John’s, because decision theory is simply not that specialised.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s