A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Economics & business PhD conference

I have just returned from the 25th annual PhD Conference in Economics and Business held at the University of Western Australia.  There were parallel sessions in economics and in finance – I attended only the 16 economics student presentations.    This Conference – organized by UWA’s Professor Ken Clements  – is one of the most-focused and best-managed conferences held in Australia.  PhD candidates from all over the country make presentations from their theses and are assigned a relatively senior academic discussant who focuses on their paper alone. Then the presented paper is opened up to general discussion.  Awards are made to the most promising contributions in both the economics and finance streams and to the assigned discussants. This year I was in charge of selecting the award for the best economics work.   It was a serious task since the recipient of this award can signal this award in their CV and it presumably has an effect on their job market prospects.

Of the 16 economics presentations 2 were in economic theory (modelling without data) and 7 were in one of a wide range of applied microeconomics areas – consumption, environmental, resources, laboratory, health, population ageing and so on. The remaining 7 were in applied macroeconomics – mainly high tech DSGE models and highly technical econometric approaches but two very interesting papers on the economics of migration that were microeconomic as much as macroeconomic.

It is important to take a balanced view in assessing the strength of these presentations.  Some presenters would not have had much presentation experience and for many it is their first major involvement in economic research.  Nevertheless I thought almost all presentations showed some measure of excellence either in terms of offering economic insight or in using advanced quantitative technologies.  My task in picking the best paper was not an easy one.

Finally I did select a paper by Jason Collins, Sexual Selection, Conspicuous Consumption and Economic Growth. Jason is from UWA – draft here.   This paper suggested that males engage in conspicuous consumption to indicate to potential females their genetic fitness because of their implied “burden-carrying”. The consumption itself involves high technology – the example he gave was a very expensive but intricately crafted watch – and the demand for such technology helps to drive economic growth.  It’s a nice idea that is based on evolutionary biology that Jason sought to apply to the origins of the Industrial Revolution.  He illustrated the idea with a slide of a male peacock  – the elaborate tail feathers constituted the “burden”.   An interesting idea and a presentation that eschewed technical detail – these were provided in the accompanying paper – and focused on the intuition of the results.  Professor Paul Frijters, the discussant, rightly question the ability of the model to explain the growth takeoff after the advent of the Industrial; Revolution but I think the model does nail something important in the determinants of growth.

Good luck Jason with your paper and with your ongoing interest in this field  – BTW Jason blogs on these issues here – I’ve added it to my blogroll.

There were 7 other papers that I thought were possible contenders for the award though I was gratified that my selection matched that provided by an independent democratic vote by all Conference participants.

I had two polemical remarks about the research that was displayed at the meeting. They are in some ways connected.

  1. The macroeconomics papers presented using VAR and other more elaborate technologies disappointed me a little.  The presenters obviously have formidable technical skills – and good presentation skills – but I am not certain the social value of the outputs obtained matched their efforts.  I have to be careful here as I have not kept up with modern macroeconomic theory in recent years and it is a tough call if you want to work in this area.  Distinctive low order theoretical models with more economics content are going to be difficult to come up with.   But my question is whether these highly specialized exercises that seem to mainly involve throwing extra technology rather than extra economics at macroeconomic problems is a good strategy.
  2. The microeconomics papers presented seemed to me also disappointing in the sense that there were no applied industry and only  one environmental economic studies.   Such studies seem to offer more social value added and also seem to offer better prospects of a distinctive contribution.  Is it too down-market to think about a PhD thesis on deregulation of the taxi industry? There has recently been a public inquiry in Victoria and one is proceeding in NSW on the same topic.  Taxis provide an important transport service in our congested cities and there are significant costs of the current system as well as significant costs in deregulating it.   I think it is a beaut applied microeconomics PhD thesis topic.  This is only an example – there are a host of applied industry studies that could potentially yield high returns – studies of the electricity sector, urban water supplies, manufacturing and Dutch Disease-induced restructuring needs and so on.  I have not mentioned climate change policy because I think there is a fair bit of work going on in this area although it did not surface much at the Conference.

I make these remarks tentatively. There are tough choices here for PhD students who are entering a global economics profession that is overwhelmingly focused on technique and theory.   I think this emphasis is hopelessly misguided but must recognize its reality.

A semi-final remark I would make that I think might be useful for students is to really think in a general way about the problems they are investigating and the context in which they exist.   A time-honored approach is to ruminate over the problem with a jug of beer sitting in front of you and a few friendly colleagues to chat to.  Academic life is all about specialization and doggedly pursuing a narrow problem by digging away at an issue.  Don’t dig such a deep hole that you lose sight of the horizon. Try to maintain perspective. It is otherwise easy to lose sight of the obvious.

A final remark is that it is very instructive if you are examining a data set using advanced econometrics to get a picture of the problem being addressed by plotting a few simple graphs of key data series and trying to explain to yourself what is going on.  The human brain and introspection will always be a useful complement to the most elaborate software package.

8 comments to Economics & business PhD conference

  • Jim Rose

    interesting. competition in the job market must be making students select very carefully what they risk studying.

    also, with specialisation, and the rising burden of knowledge etc., one author has to be the econometric number cruncher and the other author is the economist who tells him what he has found or should look for.

  • davidp

    The lack of industry studies probably reflects in part the very small number of potential supervisors in Australia who do industry studies (with an eye on policy problems) themselves – this probably reflects both supply and demand factors in hiring by Australian economics depts.

  • Richard Tsukamasa Green

    This might be a rare case of globalisation’s ills for Australia. I’ve thought that one of the great advantage of Australian economics was the focus on the practical, and useful economics. This led to no Nobel Prizes, but much better policy than the US and far less willingness to accept absurd fads like Real Business Cycle theory (or rational addiction theory), and use other fads (like DSGE or rational expectations) with appropriate caveats.

    Yet the global profession rewards those conversant in those fads, and is far less rewarding to people who produce useful economics.

  • conrad

    I’m surprised at how few PhDs in economics there are such that only 16 turn up — my psych department would have more than 16 alone (plus a few in stats), and some of those are in social psychology doing projects not unlike the one you mentioned. It’s surprising how much difference a simple name change makes even though there would be great overlap in the content area.

  • hc

    Conrad, There are many more than 16 even at individual universities such as my own. Its a selective conference targetting very good students at the end of their degree.

  • Jim Rose

    richard TG, on much better policy than the US and far less willingness to accept absurd fads like Real Business Cycle theory … and use other fads (like DSGE or rational expectations) with appropriate caveats, do you remember the 1980s, the 1990s and the Keating depression.

    the great inflation lasted much long in Australia. Edward nelson pointed out that Australia continued to suffer high inflation to the end of the 1980s because of the continuing importance of non-monetary views of inflation.

    The Keating depression was induced to close the current account, not lower inflation.

    The great moderation was a decade late in Australia.

  • Richard Tsukamasa Green

    Jim – Granted i=mistakes in the policy sphere, but in this contxt I was talking about academics and post graduates. The bad policy re the CA deficit was based on a misuse of Mundell Fleming, which unlike RBC was not stupid from the get go, just in need of caveats.

  • Jim Rose

    thanks RTG, I suggest you read the biography of keating by john edwards(?) – his economic advisor in the late 1980s.

    Edwards quotes from numerous Treasury briefings to Keating. the Treasury remembered their Keynesian educations very well, as did those at DPMC and the RBA. the prices and incomes accord was very keynesian

    Edward Nelson’s papers on which countries did and did not avoid the great inflation make great use of newspaper archives and other contemporary records.

    See Edward Nelson, 2005. “Monetary Policy Neglect and the Great Inflation in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,” International Journal of Central Banking and Edward Nelson, 2007. “The Great Inflation and Early Disinflation in Japan and Germany,” International Journal of Central Banking.

    success against the great inflation depended on the timing of governments’ and monetary authorities’ acceptance that inflation was a monetary phenomenon. That idea was a very unpopular idea in Australia until the early 1990s.

    Mentioning Friedman’s name in the 1980s at job interviews would have been extremely career limiting. Not much better in the early 1990s.

    Milton Friedman was just graduating from being ‘a wild man in the wings’ to just a suspicious character in policy circles. If you name dropped Hayek in the 1980s and early 1990s, any sign of name recognition would have indicated that you were been interviewed by educated people.

Leave a Reply