The Complexity Era in Economics

economics will not be cited or even considered. Some parts of economics, which today
are considered minor, will be seen as the forerunners of what economics will become.

The point of this comparison is to make clear that to judge the relevance of
economic contributions one must be forward-looking. One must have a vision of what
economics will be in the future, and judge research accordingly. Current journal
publication and citation metrics don’t do that; they have a status-quo bias because they
are backward looking, and thus encourage researchers to continue research methods and
approaches of the past, rather than developing approaches of the future. They are useful,
obviously, because they show activity, but they are only part of the picture, and must be
used in conjunction with specific knowledge of the researcher—what they are trying to
do, what their vision of the future is, and how they see their work fitting in. Articles
dotting i’s and crossing t’s, even ones that are cited relatively often in the short term, are
far less important than articles that strike out in new directions. These are the ones that
will change the direction of economics and be remembered in future history of economic
thought texts.

Any system of assessment of literature has to be based on a judgment about the
future direction of economics. If one does not, one is, by default, choosing the judgment
that the current approach in the profession will continue. We have a definite view of the
future of economics— there will be more acceptance that the economy is complex, and
the profession, over time, will adopt certain kinds of technical mathematical, analytical
and statistical tools to deal with that complexity. Models based on a priori assumptions
will decrease, and be replaced by empirically driven models and assumptions. Behavioral
economics will expand; experiments will become part of economist’s tool kit, as will

<<   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >>

More intriguing information