|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Buchner, Martin; Rose, Julian; Johannesson, Magnus; Malan, Mandy; Ankel-Peters, Jörg |
| Abstract: | Consensus is crucial to authoritative science, as is replicability. Yet, in economics and the social sciences, the publication of contradictory replications often sparks fierce debates between replicators and original authors. This paper investigates whether experts can reach a consensus on a famous yet unsettled debate about the robustness of the seminal paper by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (AJR, 2001) following a replication by Albouy (2012). We recruited 352 experts mainly from the pool of scholars citing one of the involved or similar articles. Through a structured online questionnaire, we assess the extent to which these experts align with AJR or Albouy. Our findings indicate no consensus on whether the original results hold after Albouy's replication, although there is a slight tendency among experts to side with the replicator. Exploratory heterogeneity analysis suggests that experts with greater academic credentials are more likely to align with Albouy. Our study demonstrates a potential way to scope scientific consensus formation and navigate replication debates and contested literatures. |
| Keywords: | replication, scientific consensus, scientific credibility, expert survey, institutions and growth |
| Date: | 2025 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:270 |
| By: | Shan Jiang |
| Abstract: | Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to reshape academic publishing by enabling the rapid production of submission-ready manuscripts. While such tools promise to enhance productivity, they also raise concerns about overwhelming journal systems that have fixed acceptance capacities. This paper uses simulation modeling to investigate how AI-driven surges in submissions may affect desk rejection rates, review cycles, and faculty publication portfolios, with a focus on business school journals and tenure processes. Three scenarios are analyzed: a baseline model, an Early Adopter model where a subset of faculty boosts productivity, and an AI Abuse model where submissions rise exponentially. Results indicate that early adopters initially benefit, but overall acceptance rates fall sharply as load increases, with tenure-track faculty facing disproportionately negative outcomes. The study contributes by demonstrating the structural vulnerabilities of the current publication system and highlights the need for institutional reform in personnel evaluation and research dissemination practices. |
| Date: | 2025–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2509.16925 |
| By: | Mohsen Javdani (Simon Fraser University) |
| Abstract: | This study contributes to growing calls for greater pluralism in economics by examining how gender shapes economists' normative and epistemological orientations. Drawing on original survey data from 2, 425 economists across 19 countries, we document systematic gender differences in views on a broad range of issues. Female economists are significantly more likely to support progressive equity-oriented positions, challenge mainstream assumptions, and endorse pluralistic approaches to inquiry. We also find stark gender differences in political ideology: women are far more likely than men to identify as left-leaning—particularly far-left—while men disproportionately align with centrist or right-leaning ideologies. These ideological divides account for some of the gender differences in views, underscoring the mediating role of political ideology. However, the influence of ideology itself varies by gender: moving rightward on the ideological spectrum reduces support for some progressive positions more sharply among men than women. This suggests that gendered experiences inform distinct interpretive frameworks that persist even within shared ideological categories. Taken together, our findings highlight that gender diversity in economics is not merely demographic but epistemic—and that realizing its transformative potential requires institutional environments that value and legitimize dissenting and underrepresented perspectives. |
| Keywords: | Gender Diversity, Economics Profession, Pluralistic Diversity, Political Ideology. |
| JEL: | A11 A13 B54 J16 D63 |
| Date: | 2024–08–20 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:thk:wpaper:inetwp238 |
| By: | Verónica Amarante; Marisa Bucheli; Tatiana Pérez |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates the link between the ideological profile of Uruguayan economists and their opinions regarding inequality and discrimination. Drawing on data from an online survey of Uruguayan economists, we explore the links between their economic opinions and three dimensions of ideology: political orientation, sexist attitudes (benevolent and hostile sexism), and pro-market views. Economists' opinions encompass diagnostic assessments of inequality and discrimination, as well as views on specific policies designed to address these issues. Using ordered probit models, we find that right-wing political ideology, hostile sexism, and pro-market attitudes are associated with a lower likelihood of agreeing that income distribution in Uruguay should be more equitable and that women face barriers to full-time employment. These ideological factors are also linked to a higher likelihood of believing that there are equal gender and race opportunities in Uruguay. Benevolent sexism exhibits a more mixed relationship with opinions on inequality and discrimination. Furthermore, we show that economists' diagnoses of inequality and discrimination mediate the relationship between ideological variables and their policy preferences. Our results point to the need for greater introspection within the discipline regarding the influence of personal values and beliefs on economic analysis and policy recommendations. Our findings challenge the notion of economics as a purely objective and unbiased discipline, revealing significant associations between ideological factors, economists' perceptions of inequality and discrimination, and their support for specific policies. |
| Keywords: | ideology, sexism, inequality, discrimination |
| JEL: | A13 D63 J16 |
| Date: | 2024–06 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ude:wpaper:0624 |