Dean Baker: why we need UMass Econ Dept and others like it

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/university-massachusetts-econ-department-how-we-know-reinhart-and-rogoff-were-wrong-1366983503

Economists concerned about their standing in their mainstream of the profession likely would have gone this route. HAP wanted to ensure that their paper would provoke a serious debate about R&’s case for austerity and were less concerned about professional etiquette.

The fact that departments like UMass exist is incredibly important. The reason we are in this economic crisis is because of the extraordinary conformity of thought among top economists in the years leading up to the collapse of the housing bubble. In the summer of 2005, when all the alarm bells should have ringing at top volume, the Fed devoted its annual meeting of central bankers to an Alan Greenspan retrospective. They debated whether he was in fact the greatest central banker of all time.

The culture of sycophantism might be too deeply ingrained in the economics profession to expect any changes any time soon. For this reason we badly need departments like UMass (the New School, the University of Utah, and University of Missouri-Kansas City are three others that fit this bill, as is Colorado State University, where I spoke last week) to expose the consensus within the profession when it strays too far from reality. The R&R debacle shows clearly the importance of this dissenting voice.

[cantbeserious]

1. Institute For New Economic Thinking

INET Conference

Steve Keen Talk At Australian Treasury

[ticktockman]

2. We should also ignore any economic paper for which its authors won't release the data.

The fact that departments like UMass exist is incredibly important.

I agree. I also think that all economists should be required to release the data on which their papers are based. This would allow departments like UMass and number-crunchers at large to check the data. The analysis of the data at http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-there-debtgdp-threshold-at-90_4.html shows that a minimal inspection of the data would have shown up numerous problems. Consumers of such economic studies need to demand that they be peer-reviewed and that all of the calculations (i.e. the spreadsheets) be released to the public. If we ignore studies that don't fulfill these requirements, I suspect that most economists would start to do both.