What is the most/least respected subfield of economics?

**inknit** · 06-27-2010, 01:56 AM

Also, which subfield is the most mathematical?

**Norsker** · 06-27-2010, 03:16 AM

Let's not turn this forum into EJMR in our boredom.

**dreck** · 06-27-2010, 03:18 AM

The subfields have a lot of important differences, but I don't think that which is more respected is at all clear cut. Every subfield has several world-famous economists working in it; respect is much more a function of the quality of the economist than the field. Respect in some (econometric theory) is discontinuous--that is there are a few stars and the others don't get much attention--while respect in others (most types of applied micro) is more smooth. Going into a field with "discontinuous" respect is a risky move, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it.

*If heterodox counts as a subfield, it's probably the least respected.

I have limited exposure to current research in theory, but I would speculate that econometric theory is the most mathematical.

**heraclitus_junior** · 06-27-2010, 04:14 AM

I think Arrow-Debreu style General equilbrium theory is something most people have admiration for. It's seems to be dead as a research field but it's well-liked.

EDIT: Oh and I think if you follow Debreu down the rabbit hole, you end up in some of the most heavily mathematical parts of economic theory.

**chisquared** · 06-27-2010, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by heraclitus_junior

I think Arrow-Debreu style General equilbrium theory is something most people have admiration for. It's seems to be dead as a research field but it's well-liked.

EDIT: Oh and I think if you follow Debreu down the rabbit hole, you end up in some of the most heavily mathematical parts of economic theory.

This makes me wonder though: is it dead as a research field because there's not much left to look into (Arrow and Debreu did cover a lot of ground, I believe...), or because it's too technically demanding?

I would imagine it might be a mix of those two reasons (or others, I guess), but which one would be the larger contributing factor to the dearth of research in that area?

**tm_member** · 06-27-2010, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by inknit

Also, which subfield is the most mathematical?

While we're on the topic, can somebody tell me how long a piece of string is?

**chisquared** · 06-27-2010, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by tm_guru

While we're on the topic, can somebody tell me how long a piece of string is?

The answer is 42.

**Gecko** · 06-27-2010, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by chisquared

This makes me wonder though: is it dead as a research field because there's not much left to look into (Arrow and Debreu did cover a lot of ground, I believe...), or because it's too technically demanding?

I would imagine it might be a mix of those two reasons (or others, I guess), but which one would be the larger contributing factor to the dearth of research in that area?

We are waiting for you to make a new breakthrough

**zshfryoh1** · 06-27-2010, 05:50 PM

The least respected field in econ is definitely history of economic thought. I had one prof as a UG who had a bunch of HET publications, but almost all were after he received tenure and what he published before tenure was on the development of mathematics in general equilibrium theory. Another UG prof of mine is not yet tenured and has interests in HET but will probably not publish in it until after tenure (she published one paper that was a mixed macro-theory/HET paper about reviving and updating some old ideas on reserve currencies). Except at the few heterodox schools, it is nearly impossible to publish in HET prior to receiving tenure, and even after tenure most of your colleagues will look down on you.

**IPreferPi** · 06-27-2010, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by zshfryoh1

The least respected field in econ is definitely history of economic thought. I had one prof as a UG who had a bunch of HET publications, but almost all were after he received tenure and what he published before tenure was on the development of mathematics in general equilibrium theory. Another UG prof of mine is not yet tenured and has interests in HET but will probably not publish in it until after tenure (she published one paper that was a mixed macro-theory/HET paper about reviving and updating some old ideas on reserve currencies). Except at the few heterodox schools, it is nearly impossible to publish in HET prior to receiving tenure, and even after tenure most of your colleagues will look down on you.

I'll agree and also add in economic history. One unfortunate consequence of the mathematical transformation of economics is the marginalization of economic history and HET. I've seen many economists nowadays equate their work to those of mathematicians and physicists; thing is though is that I'd wager the typical mathematician and physicist probably knows and cares a lot more about the history of their discipline than the economist does. And they're the actual *hard* scientists!