Impact of an academic economist?

[argmax]

This is my first post and i would like to discuss what the title says. A few days ago i was discussing with a friend about this. While i am pretty sure i want to do a phd in economics and try to get a job in academia, he has some doubts about this. He enjoys economics very much but he told me that he thinks he would have much impact in the private or goverment sector than in the academic one. His thoughts come from the idea that only top academic economists have some influence and that around the media academic economists have no influence at all in real world issues and also on research in economics. Of course i do not agree with him but i would like to know other opinions. What do you think guys?

[breakz]

The impression I get is that, unless you're a truly talented academic economist, you won't make much of an impact in "real world issues."

I'd argue that private sector guys don't make much impact either, and the most "impactful" economists work for the government by merging their abilities with applicable policy.

[nash12]

I think the question being posed is always misunderstood. The contribution of academia, be it economics, physics, history or mathematics cannot be quantified by 'direct' real world applications. Research interacts with society in a complex manner. It is more of a spillover effect. Research stimulates intellectual curiosity of a society without which we would stagnate. One of the main reasons why the US as a nation surged ahead post World War II was its stress on democracy, free thinking and huge investments in education. A testimony of this is all of us applying to the US grad schools.

[argmax]

My response to my friend was that you could also have like an indirect impact perhaps. Your research may motivate other research, so being cited or that other researchers could get some new ideas by reading your work is also an impact that could end up meaning something. But i agree with you Nash12, the contribution of academia cannot be quantified by direct real world applications.

[Golden Rule]

I'd also add that this isn't an either/or choice. Plenty of academic economists will visit at Feds, for govt. organizations like the Census/BLS/FCC or whatever. Note that media exposure does not necessarily equate with influence.

[TruDog]

I would also include teaching students in this mix. A lot of people in this forum seem to completely forget about this part of the job, and that's a real shame. Most academic economists can make a bigger impact by teaching students in ECON 101 about how the world works than by doing some arcane research paper.

[asianeconomist]

I would also include teaching students in this mix. A lot of people in this forum seem to completely forget about this part of the job, and that's a real shame. Most academic economists can make a bigger impact by teaching students in ECON 101 about how the world works than by doing some arcane research paper.

That's right ! Greg Mankiw does the same with his EC 10 class I guess.

One of my professors once told me that the course he enjoys teaching most is ECO 101 and not the Adv. Dev. Econ. course. At that time, we all joked about it (how could a technical, theoretical course ever be not superior to a so-called "layman" course in Econ). But then he explained and now I know better.

[jenizaro]

Wide understanding of basic economics is so important for democracy to really work. I think that if people in my country knew just a little more economics we wouln't be making so many mistakes.

About the OP question, I don't think the main objective of academia is to cause impact but to understand the world. If what you learn has important practical applications later, that's a bonus. But trying to focus on impact is not really a good idea. If what moves you is causing broad impact, I'd advice to follow another path.

[kartelite]

Does the word "epsilon" mean anything to you?