3 ms·
Tyler Cowen writes [0] that the most important question in economics, to him, is > how do differences of culture — however defined — interact with traditional
by setgree 6y ago
Tyler Cowen writes [0] that the most important question in economics, to him, is
> how do differences of culture — however defined — interact with traditional economic mechanisms involving prices, incomes, and simple comparative statics? Are those competing explanations, namely cultural vs. economic?
Richie's answers are mostly focused on changing the culture of science, and while there are lots of ways we could change the incentives, none of them would be pretty.
Example: let's say we want to more closely align research and actionable results, e.g., a product a company can use (Brian Armstrong argues for something like this [1]).
Solution: radically reduce public funding for scientific research and for university education as a whole (in line with Bryan Caplan's arguments in "The Case Against Education" [2]). Academics, who would be many fewer in number, would then have to get more of their funding from companies, who (presumably) would:
A) guide them towards asking market-relevant questions, and
B) have a clear incentive to check the data, re-run the code, etc. -- so that the product they built based on that research didn't flop.
I think most people would recoil at this proposal. But that's what comes to mind when I think about fixing the incentives rather than the culture.
P.S. Small nitpick: Richie gives an _example_ of a perverse incentive in lieu of a definition.
[0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/important-unsolved-problems-field.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/im...
[1] https://medium.com/@barmstrong/ideas-on-how-to-improve-scientific-research-9e2e56474132 https://medium.com/@barmstrong/ideas-on-how-to-improve-scien...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education
- cousin_it 6y ago> Solution: radically reduce public funding for scientific research and for university education as a whole Wouldn't that make many scientists (both good and bad) move to other countries where funding is easier to get?
- setgree 6y agoSome, perhaps. Others would likely choose different careers, or would adapt. FWIW, and I didn't clarify this enough in my post -- I meant this as an example solution of something that would change the incentives rather than the culture, not necessarily as my own full-throated endorsement; I do personally think that steps in this direction would be for the best, but it's not as though there wouldn't be downsides that would need to be managed/mitigated.
- michaelt 6y agoIf you think funding from industry makes academics' results more robust, you might want to look into tobacco-industry-funded research on cancer, oil-industry-funded research on global warming, and ridesharing-industry-funded research on drivers' working conditions.
- JackFr 6y agoNo one thinks "research on drivers' working conditions" is science. Manifestly self-interested nonsense like that is relatively easily ignored. And if that's the trade we make to get Bell Labs, Xerox Parc and IBM Research, I'll take it.
- dgb23 6y agoI think this approach is flawed. Most long-term high impact findings come from foundational research, not applied science. Also scientists would then just tune their research to sound good to investors. Tuning economic knobs in an area that should be as free from outside pressure as possible seems counterproductive. No, being stricter in rewarding rigor over perceived usefulness is the way to go.
- stonemetal12 6y agoWe tried that and got the smoking is not bad for you science of the '70s, sugar is not bad for you science of the '80s, and the fossil fuels aren't causing global warming of today. How many drugs have been "proved" safe for human consumption because it is better for the bottom line? Science beholden to business just proves whatever is convenent for business owners not the truth.