Political tilts of Econ departments?

[chauchau]

Originally Posted by Econ2006

I don't get the sense that QJE is conservative. If anything, it's to the left of other top journals (and well to the left of JPE). But, perhaps your definition of "conservative" is different from mine.

Really? Can I ask why you think that? It could be that I don't know what I'm talking about, b/c I've only seen a small percentage of papers published in QJE. I do know for a fact that Robert Barro is quite conservative, though not quite as conservative as Andrei Schleifer, and, if memory serves, these guys have been the editors for the past 15 years or so. Plus, it seems like virtually every well-known conservative economist has at least one (or six) papers in the QJE. Indeed, while I don't have any statistics to back this up, it does seem like people who've published in the QJE publish in the JPE and vice versa, and that those are often Harvard or Chicago people... I think Ted Bergstrom at one of the UC's (santa barbara perhaps?) did a statistical study on this... He found that those two journals are quite clubby, confirming what everyone in the profession already suspected. I think Schleifer may have come under some heat at some point for publishing his own & coauthors stuff a bit too much, and for how much "quality variance" there was at the journal...

Edit: OK, Ed Glaeser, who I didn't realize was also a QJE co-editor, certainly doesn't, at first glance, look all that conservative. Although I'm not sure can choke down all of his stuff on politics, it's definitely at least not "conservative" by any means. Not sure about Larry Katz, but read this article about the "liberal media" article the QJE published... http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/06.01.01.html

[Econ2006]

I've been told that they look for papers with conclusions that are contrary to accepted wisdom, especially if these conclusions reinforce a more liberal position. This came out of a conversation I had with a very senior top 5 professor who knows a bit about the inner workings of the top journals. I haven't heard the same regarding AER, Econometrica, etc. In any event, this isn't to say that someone who is known as a "conservative" can't publish there.

[chauchau]

Originally Posted by Econ2006

I've been told that they look for papers with conclusions that are contrary to accepted wisdom, especially if these conclusions reinforce a more liberal position. This came out of a conversation I had with a very senior top 5 professor who knows a bit about the inner workings of the top journals. I haven't heard the same regarding AER, Econometrica, etc. In any event, this isn't to say that someone who is known as a "conservative" can't publish there.

Well, I think all Econ Journals have a fetish for articles with conclusions which run counter to the conventional wisdom. (The prototypical irking econ article does just that...) You could be correct, although I would not have guessed that the Shleifer/Barro crowd would especially take to liberal-leaning conclusions... It's tough to square what you're saying w/ some of Shleifer's articles (like "politicians & firms") and the "liberal media bias" article, which certainly don't go out of their way to come to liberal conclusions. On the other hand, Glaeser's there as well, so there's at least one adult on the editorial board.

Hmmm... I think I need a few more data points. I'll sleep on it...