=================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
[NOTE: The following appeared as a "Current Literature" column on the  
HAYEK-L list, and was originally published as  "Correspondence,"  _Journal  
of Economic Perspectives_.  Spring 1998. Vol. 12, No.  p. 243. It was  
forwarded to HES by Michael Robison. -- RBE.] 
 
The Economics Literature 
 
Professor Rosen (Fall 1997, pp. 139-52) concludes that a successful market 
test for economic thought exists: the best, which is neoclassical 
economics, 
survives and dominates the literature.  If so, why does a very common 
opinion 
exist even among economists that the literature of the mess of current 
economic journals is a pile of worthless stuff? 
 
Donald C. Wellington 
University of Cincinnati 
Cincinnati, Ohio 
 
 
I noticed a delightful similarity in two comments in the Fall 1997 JEP.   
On pp. 161-65, Leland Yeager argues that there is lots of good Austrian  
economics, but it does not get into the top journals.  On pp. 229-30,  
Marianne Ferber argues that discrimination against women is prevalent in  
economics departments, and that women are at a disadvantage in getting  
their work published and cited.  Have we found a link between Austrian and  
feminist economics? 
 
This implication of both arguments is that some very good work has been 
published in lesser journals and has escaped notice.  (Yeager also makes 
the 
point that some very bad work has appeared in top journals, but this 
assertion 
is uncontroversial, I think, and work that later turns out to be useless is 
an 
inevitable part of the scientific process.)  I find the implication quite 
plausible, and it has a policy implication.  I wonder whether Professors 
Yeager and Ferber could each give us a list of ten good articles that in 
their 
opinion should have appeared in a top journal but did not?  Such lists 
would 
be educational, and good grist for lunchtime discussions. 
 
Eric Rasmusen 
Kelley School of Business 
Indiana University 
Bloomington, Indiana 
 
Response from Leland B. Yeager 
 
Professor Rasmusen misunderstands my message.  I was not whining about 
discrimination against Austrian economists and calling for affirmative 
action. 
I was responding-on invitation to Sherwin Rosen's putdown of Austrian 
economics in favor of the neoclassical mainstream.  I identified the 
insidious 
secondhandism pervading academic economics nowadays, exemplified by Rosen's 
appeal to a supposed market test. 
 
I was not implying that many excellent Austrian articles worthy of 
publication 
in prestigious journals have nevertheless been shunted to obscure outlets, 
samizdat status, or file drawers.  Many Austrian articles have presumably 
never been written because their potential authors, recognizing the 
difficulty 
of publishing them (prestigiously, anyway), instead devoted their energies 
to 
books, to "strategic articles" (so called by Peter Boettke and explained in 
my 
paper), or to works of mainstream character.  I did say that I had been 
influenced by Austrian writings for many decades.  Yes, but those writings 
were mostly books and pamphlets. Some journal articles by F. A. Hayek were 
exceptions; but it is doubtful that even Hayek could get such articles into 
mainstream journals nowadays, given the criteria applied (unless the 
editors 
deferred to his Nobel prize). 
 
Perhaps, as some advisors told me, I should have spurned Rasmusen's 
misconceived challenge; but my refusal might have been misinterpreted and 
wrongly exploited.  Still, as I already made clear, I am in no sense a 
spokesman for the Austrian school, nor do I even consider myself an 
Austrian 
economist.  What follows is in no way a list of the top ten unduly 
neglected 
Austrian articles.  For the most part, I have refreshed my memory of 
articles 
fairly readily at hand.  Despite what Rasmusen may perhaps have expected, I 
did not feel obliged to hunt down, study, and rank all suggested articles. 
I 
thank all advisors for their suggestions and apologize to those whose 
suggestions do not appear in the list. 
 
Bellante, Don, "Sticky Wages, Efficiency Wages, and Market Process," Reuiew 
of 
Austrian Economics, 1994, 8:1, 21-33. 
 
Cantor, Paul A., "Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of 
Austrian Economics," Review of Austrian Economics, 1994, 7:1, 3-29. 
 
Garrison, Roger W., "New Classical and Old Austrian Economics: Equilibrium 
Business Cycle Theory in Perspective," Review of Austrian Economics, 1991, 
5:1, 91-103. 
 
Keizer, Willem, "Schumpeter's Walrasian Stand in the Socialist Calculation 
Debate." In Willem Keizer, Bert Tieben, and Rudy van Zijp, eds. Austrian 
Economics in Debate. London and New York: Routledge, 1997, 75-94. 
 
Kirzner, Israel M., "The Primacy of Entrepreneurial Discovery." From The 
Prime 
Mover of Progress. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1980. Reprinted 
in 
Richard M. Edeling, ed. Austrian Economics: A Reader. Hillsdale, MI: 
Hillsdale 
College Press, 1991, 304-33. 
 
Klein, Daniel B., "Trust for Hire: Voluntary Remedies for Quality and 
Safety." 
In D.B. Klein, ed. RepUtation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 
89-125. 
 
O'Driscoll, Gerald P.Jr., "Spontaneous Order and the Coordination of 
Economic 
Activities." In Louis M. Spadaro, ed. New Directions in Austrian Economics. 
Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1978, 111-42. 
 
Selin, George A., "The Yield on Money Held Revisited: Lessons for Today," 
Market Process, Spring 1987. Reprinted in Peter J. Boettke and David L. 
Prychitko, eds. The Market Process. Aldershot, Hant, England; Brookfield, 
Vermont: E. Elgar, 1994, 139-55. 
 
Vedder, Richard IL, and Lowell Gallaway, "The Great Depression of 1946," 
Re/ew 
of Austrian Economics, 1991, 5:2, 3-31. 
 
Zappia, Carlo, "Private Information, Contractual Arrangements and Hayek's 
Knowledge Problem." In Willem Keizer, Bert Tieben, and Rudy van Zijp, eds. 
Austrian Economics in Debate. London and New York: Routledge, 1997, 26484. 
 
 
Response from Marianne A. Ferber 
 
I should mention that I based my conclusion about discrimination in 
economics 
journals against female authors, not on evidence that some good papers were 
turned down (that is always bound to happen), but rather on evidence that 
the 
acceptance rates of articles that had at least one woman author as compared 
to 
those that did not were higher in journals that had double-blind refereeing 
than in journals where the referees knew the identity of the authors.  
Also, I 
doubt there is any special affinity between Austrian and feminist 
economics, 
but rather expect that similar claims would be made by most or all 
heterodox 
economists. 
 
Nonetheless, I am enclosing a list of ten papers, as you requested, which 
in 
my view should have been published in more highly ranked journals than the  
ones in which they appeared.  I did not include any that were published as  
chapters of edited books, because some of those might have been written in  
response to an invitation. However, I did include papers that may not have  
been submitted to other journals. That seems legitimate, because the  
authors might well have assumed they did not have much of a chance of  
being accepted there. 
 
Agarwal, Bina, " 'Bargaining' and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the 
Household," Feminist Economics, Spring 1997, 3:1, 1-50. 
 
Bergmann, Barbara R., "Occupational Segregation, Wages and Profits When 
Employers Discriminate by Race and Sex," Eastern Economic Journal, 
April/July 
1974, 1:2-3, 103-10. 
 
Bergmann, Barbara R., and Willlnn A. Darity, Jr., "Social Relations in the 
Workplace and Employer Discrimination," Proceedings of the Thirty-Third 
Annual 
Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, 1981, 
155-62. 
 
Ferber, Marianne A., "Citations: Are They an Objective Measure of Scholarly 
Merit" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Winter 1986, 11:2, 
381-89. [Rejected by the Southern Economic Journal 
 
Folbre, Nancy, "Of Patriarchy Born: The Political Economy of Fertility 
Decisions," Feminist Studies, 1983, 92, 261-84. [Rejected by Population and 
Development Review] Hill, M. Anne, and Elizabeth M. King, "Women's 
Education 
and Economic WellBeing," Feminist Economics, Summer 1995, 1:2, 21-46. 
 
Katz, Elizabeth, "The Intra-Household Economics of Voice and Exit," 
Feminist 
Economics, Summer 1995, 3:3, 25-46. 
 
Nelson, Julie A., "Gender, Metaphor and the Definition of Economics," 
Economics and Philosophy, Spring 1992, 81, lOS-25. Sawhill, Isabel V., 
"Economic Perspectives on the Family," Daedalus, Spring 1987, 106:2, 11525. 
 
Wan, Barnet, and Nancy Folbre, "Household Services and Economic Growth in 
the 
United States, 1870-1930," Feminist Economics, Spring 1996, 21, 43-66. 
[Rejected by Explorations in Economic History]" 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]