nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2020‒11‒23
four papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics By Cloos, Janis; Greiff, Matthias; Rusch, Hannes
  2. Presence of Women in Economics Academia: Evidence from India By Ambrish Dongre; Karan Singhal; Upasak Das
  3. Impact of universities in a flat hierarchy: Do degrees from top universities lead to a higher wage? By Schwerter, Jakob
  4. Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research By Brian Fabo; Martina Jancokova; Elisabeth Kempf; Lubos Pastor

  1. By: Cloos, Janis; Greiff, Matthias; Rusch, Hannes
    Abstract: We examine geographical concentration, scientific quality, and editorial favoritism in the field of experimental economics. We use a novel data set containing all original research papers (𝑁 = 583) that exclusively used laboratory experiments for data generation and were published in the American Economic Review, Experimental Economics or the Journal of the European Economic Association between 1998 and 2018. The development of geographical concentration is examined using data on authors' affiliations at the time of the respective publication. Results show that research output produced by US-affiliated economists increased slower than overall research output, leading to a decrease in geographical concentration. Several proxies for scientific quality indicate that experiments conducted in Europe are of higher quality than experiments conducted in North America: European experiments rely on a larger total number of participants as well as participants per treatment, and receive more citations compared to experiments conducted in North America. Examining laboratory experiments published in the AER more closely, we find that papers authored by economists with US-affiliations receive significantly fewer citations in the first 5 and 10 years after publication compared to papers by authors from the rest of the world.
    Keywords: laboratory experiments,favoritism,geographical concentration,methodological standards,network effects
    JEL: A11 A14 C90 I23
    Date: 2020
  2. By: Ambrish Dongre; Karan Singhal; Upasak Das
    Abstract: This paper documents the representation of women in Economics academia in India by analyzing the share of women in faculty positions, and their participation in a prestigious conference held annually. Data from the elite institutions shows that the presence of women as the Economics faculty members remains low. Of the authors of the papers which were in the final schedule of the prestigious research conference, the proportion of women authors is again found to be disproportionately low. Our findings from further analysis indicate that women are not under-represented at the post-graduate level. Further, the proportion of women in doctoral programmes has increased over time, and is now almost proportionate. Tendency of women who earn a doctorate abroad, to not return to India, time needed to complete a doctoral program, and responsibilities towards the family may explain lower presence of women in Economics academia in India.
    Date: 2020–10
  3. By: Schwerter, Jakob
    Abstract: The literature shows a wage premium for graduates from high quality, elite, or more selective universities. The results, however, exist for countries with a clear hierarchy of top universities, such as the US, England, and Australia. I evaluate if such an effect also exists in Germany, a country in which universities are top-performing in some but not all fields, and the general differences between universities are smaller compared to, e.g., the USA. I use the University Ranking of the Quacquarelli Symonds and a revealed preference and acceptance ranking to measure the quality of a university. Both rankings show a wage premium in IV regression in-between five and 13 percent. This effect is specially prevalent for women.
    Keywords: wage premium,ranking,revealed preferences,Germany
    JEL: I23 I24 I26 J31
    Date: 2020
  4. By: Brian Fabo (National Bank of Slovakia); Martina Jancokova (European Central Bank); Elisabeth Kempf (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago); Lubos Pastor (National Bank of Slovakia Abstract: Central banks sometimes evaluate their own policies. To assess the inherent conflict of interest, we compare the research findings of central bank researchers and academic economists regarding the macroeconomic effects of quantitative easing (QE). We find that central bank papers report larger effects of QE on output and inflation. Central bankers are also more likely to report significant effects of QE on output and to use more positive language in the abstract. Central bankers who report larger QE effects on output experience more favorable career outcomes. A survey of central banks reveals substantial involvement of bank management in research production. Length: 63 pages)
    JEL: A11 E52 E58 G28
    Date: 2020–10

This nep-sog issue is ©2020 by Jonas Holmström. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.