Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human capital, collegiality, and stardom in economics: empirical analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the importance of collegiality (i.e., good colleagues) and the quality of human capital investment in fostering the development and growth of stars in the field of economics, where stardom is measured by way of receipt of the John Bates Clark Medal, arguably the second-most prestigious award in economics. We provide a vignette as a foundation for both qualitative and quantitative analysis using Egghe’s g-Index. Our results indicate that three institutions, namely Chicago, Harvard and MIT, with secondary consideration to Princeton, generally rank highest in fostering the growth and development of stars in the field of economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As Mixon and Upadhyaya (2012: 91) indicate, the John Bates Clark Medal is awarded to an American economist under 40 who is thought to have made the most significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge.

  2. As Mixon and Upadhyaya (2011: 121) point out, the YJA is awarded biannually (under the auspices of the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation in Finland) to a European economist under 45 years old who has made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is deemed significant to economics in Europe. The YJA is widely viewed as the second-most prestigious award that can be given to a European economist.

  3. Authors’ acknowledgements are generally contained in a footnote on the first page of a published article. Therein the author or authors recognize the names of individuals who have provided comments and criticisms of the particular study. Berg and Faria (2008) show that this practice serves as a signaling device that increases the probability of acceptance for some authors, a potential explored in Laband et al. (2002) and Mixon and Sawyer (2005). Laband and Tollison (2003) also admit to the possibility of rent seeking through inclusion of journal editors in lists of thanked scholars, although their results hold after adjusting authors’ acknowledgements for journal editors.

  4. These include Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, James Tobin, Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow, Hendrik Houthakker, Zvi Griliches, Gary Becker, Marc Nerlove, Dale Jorgenson, Franklin Fisher, Martin Feldstein, James Heckman, Lawrence Summers, David Card, Kevin Murphy and Andrei Shleiffer.

  5. Hogan (1981) examines the importance of program size, the quality of entrants and of the faculty, as measured by the faculty’s published research output, in drawing conclusions about the importance of faculty research in determining the quality of a graduate program.

  6. Chicago ranks fourth using total citations and first using citations per faculty. Harvard and MIT rank first and second, respectively, using the former method, and seventh and second, respectively, using the latter approach (Laband and Piette 1995).

  7. This implication of this finding is only buttressed by the type of mentor-protégé relationships in scholarly activity discussed in Laband and Piette (1995) and Mixon (1997).

  8. Stigler (1988: 16) notes that his a priori was seemingly supported when, in 1933, his application to Columbia University resulted in being sent an impersonal pamphlet from the institution and that to Harvard University was met with a personal letter from the departmental secretary, while his application to Chicago prompted a personal response from Harry Millis, the department chairman. In fairness, Stigler (1988: 16) does add a positive sentiment about his professional experience during a subsequent period (11 years) while on the faculty at Columbia.

  9. One might add that through numerous interactions with high-quality colleagues, communication of one’s ideas is made more efficient (Stigler 1988).

  10. The themes in Breit and Hirsch (2004) emerge through a recasting of presentations from a Nobel Laureates lecture series sponsored by Trinity University.

  11. See www.aeaweb.org/honors_awards/clark_medal.php.

  12. Economists under age 40 of all nationalities are eligible for the JBCM, provided they are affiliated with an American institution at the time the Medal is awarded.

  13. In recent years the JBCM has been awarded in April. Information about the selection process for the JBCM is relatively scant. The Minutes of the April 17, 2014, meeting of the AEA Executive Committee reveals more than most sources about this process (www.aeaweb.org/minutes/14Apr17minExec.pdf):

    [Alan] Auerbach explained that nominations for the Clark Medal were solicited from economics department heads of major research universities. The Honors and Awards Committee … also examined lists of eligible scholars to insure that no viable candidate was overlooked. After an extensive discussion of the importance and likely lasting effects of the research contributions of candidates, the Honors and Awards Committee and Executive Committee members, acting together as an Electoral College, VOTED to award the 2014 John Bates Clark Medal to Matthew Gentzkow.”

    Our own review of the data indicates that 18.5 % of voters alluded to in the quote above are holders of the JBCM, and that 55.5 % were affiliated with one of five institutions: Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale. In terms of PhD training, 40.7 % of the 2014 JBCM voters hold doctorates from MIT, followed by Princeton at 11.1 %, and Chicago, Harvard and Stanford, each at 7.4 %. Lastly, 33.3 % of voters in 2014 are female.

  14. Mixon and Upadhyaya (2014) also point out that the JBCM remained vacant in 1953, otherwise it has been awarded on every appropriate occasion since 1947.

  15. The use of the phrase “[t]rained in economics…” throughout this study is synonymous with earning a PhD in economics.

  16. Note that Kenneth Boulding, the 1949 winner of the JBCM, did not complete doctoral training. Thus, he is not included in statistical analyses related to the impact of doctoral training (human capital) on career performance. Data on Boulding is, however, used in other areas of this study.

  17. For example, a scholar has an h-index of 25 if 25 of his 100 papers have at least 25 citations each and the other 75 papers each have fewer than 25 citations (Editors 2007).

  18. This approach is perhaps limited given the fact that a number of the ranked institutions have trained only one JBCM winner.

  19. This approach is, again, perhaps limited given the fact that a number of the ranked institutions have trained only one JBCM winner.

  20. Again, this approach is perhaps limited given the fact that a number of the ranked institutions have trained only one JBCM winner.

  21. Relative to the ranking data from the 1947 to 1991 era, the ranking data from 1993 to 2014 exhibit low variance, thus explaining a portion of the difference in correlation coefficients.

  22. This approach is, again, perhaps limited given the fact that a number of the ranked institutions have trained only one JBCM winner.

  23. Again, relative to the ranking data from the 1947 to 1991 era, the ranking data from 1993 to 2014 exhibit low variance, thus explaining a portion of the difference in correlation coefficients.

  24. The oldest of these (i.e., Graves et al. 1982) is compared to the Nobel Prize Era rankings from Table 2, while the most recent studies are compared to only the Modern Era rankings from Table 3. The remaining two studies are applied to both eras (i.e., to the results in both tables).

  25. In addition to using the generally high rankings of MIT, Chicago and Harvard to separate these three from the larger group, we also sought to include only those institutions affiliated with multiple JCBM winners in at least one ranking from each of the eras (i.e., Nobel Prize and Modern) examined so as to avoid any related econometric issues in the quantitative data analysis presented in Sect. 5 of this study. It is this latter aspect of the empirical approach that separates Princeton, an admittedly top-tier institution, from the other three universities.

  26. As before, Princeton also performs well in terms of the human capital rankings provided in Tables 2 and 3. However, following the empirical approach described in the previous footnote, it is not included with the other three universities.

  27. In their study, Chan et al. (2014) examine the effect of becoming a JBCM recipient or an Econometric Society Fellow on subsequent performance. Their results suggest statistically significant positive publication and citation differences after award receipt.

  28. The synthetic control groups constructed by Chan et al. (2014) that compete for each JBCM include, on average, about 4.75 non-recipient economists for each JBCM winner.

  29. Note that this time frame combines the last 10 years of what is referred to in this study as the Nobel Prize Era, or 1983–1991, with roughly the first 10 years of what is referred to in this study the Modern Era, or 1993–2003. Although not included in Chan et al. (2014), the JBCM-winning portfolio of Steven Levitt, the 2003 JBCM winner, is included here given that he was a competitor for the award in 2001.

  30. This idea is certainly consistent with Stigler’s account of life in the economics department at Chicago (Stigler 1988). A similar account is provided by Breit and Hirsch (2004).

  31. Although not as large as in the prior case, this is a relatively large R 2 for pooled data of the sort examined here.

  32. See Mixon and Gibson (2001) for a similar approach to an investigation into the determinants of concealed-carry gun laws in the US.

  33. The advantage of Harvard collegiality can, to some extent, be seen upon examination of the 1983–2003 period in Fig. 1.

  34. The advantage of MIT human capital can, to some extent, be seen upon examination of the 1983–2003 period in Fig. 2.

  35. These differences are 22.5 and 28.5, respectively. They are significant at the 0.05 and the 0.10 level, respectively.

References

  • Amir, R., & Knauff, M. (2008). Ranking economics departments worldwide on the basis of PhD placement. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review, 20, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, N., & Faria, J. R. (2008). Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit? Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 1234–1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M., & Vane, H. R. (2003). Who’s who in economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borooah, V. K. (1994). Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management. Public Choice, 81, 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breit, W., & Hirsch, B. T. (2004). Lives of the Laureates: Eighteen nobel economists (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., Frey, B. S., Gallus, J., & Torgler, B. (2014). Academic honors and performance. Labour Economics, 31, 188–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. F., & Torgler, B. (2015). The implications of educational and methodological background for the career success of nobel Laureates: An investigation of major awards. Scientometrics, 102, 847–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupé, T. (2003). Revealed performances: Worldwide rankings of economists and economics departments, 1990–2000. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1309–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1981). Several tests for model specification in the presence of alternative hypotheses. Econometrica, 49, 781–793.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dusansky, R., & Vernon, C. J. (1998). Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors. (2007). From h to g: The evolution of citation indexes. Research Trends, 1, 4. http://www.researchtrends.com/issue1-september-2007/from-h-to-g/.

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R. (1998). The economics of witchcraft and the big eye effect. Kyklos, 51, 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R. (2002). Scientific, business and political networks in academia. Research in Economics, 56, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, J. R., Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Salter, S. P. (2012). An economic model of workplace mobbing in academe. Economics of Education Review, 31, 720–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Awards in economics: Towards a new field of inquiry. https://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/401.html.

  • Friedman, M. (1935). Professor Pigou’s method for measuring elasticities of demand from budgetary data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 50, 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, P. E., Marchand, J. R., & Thompson, R. (1982). Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. American Economic Review, 72, 1131–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gujurati, D. N. (1988). Basic econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2007) Publish or perish. www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Hilmer, M. J., & Hilmer, C. E. (2009). Fishes, ponds, and productivity: Student–advisor matching and early career publishing success for economics PhDs. Economic Inquiry, 47, 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, T. D. (1981). Faculty research activity and the quality of graduate training. Journal of Human Resources, 16, 400–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R. (2012). Factors associated with scientific creativity. Euresis Journal, 2, 77–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R., Hollingsworth, E. J., & Gear, D. M. (2011). Major discoveries, creativity, and the dynamics of science. Wien: Remaprint Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. (1962). Econometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P., & Stengos, T. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 1346–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E., & Lazear, E. P. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 801–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1998). A guide to econometrics. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1995). Team production in economics: Division of labor or mentoring? Labour Economics, 2, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2003). Good colleagues. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52, 505–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., Tollison, R. D., & Karahan, G. R. (2002). Quality control in economics. Kyklos, 55, 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, J. G. (1983). Model specification tests against non-nested alternatives. Econometric Reviews, 2, 85–158.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1992). Introduction to econometrics. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, R. B. (1979). The economic basis of departmental discord in academe. Social Science Quarterly, 59, 653–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr. (1997). Team production in economics: A comment and extension. Labour Economics, 4, 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Gibson, M. T. (2001). The retention of state level concealed handgun laws: Empirical evidence from interest group and legislative models. Public Choice, 107, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Sawyer, W. C. (2005). Contribution, attribution and the assignment of intellectual property rights in economics. Journal of Economic Studies, 32, 382–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2011). From London to the continent: Ranking European economics departments on the basis of prestigious medals and awards. Ekonomia, 14, 119–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2012). The economics Olympics: Ranking U.S. economics departments based on prizes, medals, and other awards. Southern Economic Journal, 79, 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mixon, F. G., Jr., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2014). Eyes on the prize: Human capital and demographic elements of economics’ Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark Medal. Briefing Notes in Economics, 24, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oettl, A. (2012). Reconceptualizing stars: Scientist helpfulness and peer performance. Management Science, 58, 1122–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rampel, C. (2009). Prize deflation. The New York Times, January 4. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/prize-deflation/?_r=0.

  • Scott, L. C., & Mitias, P. M. (1996). Trends in rankings of economics departments in the U.S.: An update. Economic Inquiry, 34, 378–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, N. (2014) Handicapping the john bates clark medal. The Wall Street Journal. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/04/16/handicapping-the-john-bates-clark-medal-3/.

  • Stigler, G. J. (1988). Memoirs of an unregulated economist. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgler, B., & Piatti, M. (2013). A century of American Economic Review: Insights on critical factors in journal publishing. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MPA Program, University of Texas – El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

    João R. Faria

  2. Center for Economic Education, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA

    Franklin G. Mixon Jr.

  3. Department of Economics, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA

    Kamal P. Upadhyaya

Authors
  1. João R. Faria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franklin G. Mixon Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamal P. Upadhyaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franklin G. Mixon Jr..

Additional information

The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees of this journal for providing many helpful comments on an earlier version of this study. The usual caveat applies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faria, J.R., Mixon, F.G. & Upadhyaya, K.P. Human capital, collegiality, and stardom in economics: empirical analysis. Scientometrics 106, 917–943 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1835-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1835-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation