Why Economists Reject Long-Term Fisheries Management Plans?

Most fisheries agencies conduct biological and economic assessments independently. This independent conduct may lead to situations in which economists reject management plans proposed by biologists. The objective of this study is to show how to find optimal strategies that may satisfy biologists and economists' conditions. In particular we characterize optimal fishing trajectories that maximize the present value of a discounted economic indicator taking into account the age-structure of the population as in stock assessment methodologies. This approach is applied to the Northern Stock of Hake. Our main empirical findings are: i) Optimal policy may be far away from any of the classical scenarios proposed by biologists, ii) The more the future is discounted, the higher the likelihood of finding contradictions among scenarios proposed by biologists and conclusions from economic analysis, iii) Optimal management reduces the risk of the stock falling under precautionary levels, especially if the future is not discounted to much, and iv) Optimal stationary fishing rate may be very different depending on the economic indicator used as reference.

What Have We Learned from the Deepwater Horizon Disaster? An Economist’s Perspective

This paper outlines what we have learned about the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil disaster from the economics discipline as well as what effect the DWH disaster has had on the economics discipline. It appears that what we know about the economic impact of the DWH spill today is limited, possibly because such analysis is tied up in the federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process and other state-led efforts. There is evidence, however, that the NRDA process has changed over time to de-emphasize economic valuation of damages. There is also evidence that economists may be producing fewer outputs as a result of the DWH relative to scholars from other disciplines because of an apparent absence of funding for it. Of the research that has taken place, this paper provides a summary and highlights the main directions of future research. It appears that the most pressing topic is addressing the incentives and policies in place to promote a culture of safety in the offshore oil industry. Also, it appears that the most prominent, and challenging, direction of future research resulting from the DWH is the expansion of an ecosystems services approach to damage assessment and marine policy. Lea el abstracto en español 请点击此处阅读中文摘要

Journal citation among heterodox economists 1995-2007: Dynamics of community emergence

Purpose – This study aims to investigate the pattern among 17 heterodox economic journals over a prolonged period to provide evidence about the social dynamics among the group of researchers who publish in them and the extent to which they hold or develop a collective identity as heterodox economists. Design/methodology/approach – Traditional approaches to citation analysis are extended by the use of techniques from social network analysis. In addition to citation counts, measures of network position and clique membership are used to identify key journals and turning points in a longitudinal analysis. Findings – Important shifts in the nature of citation within the network of journals are identified in the 1998-2001 period and evidence is found of the emergence of a collective identity. Research limitations/implications – The methods prove a valuable extension of citation analysis and also focus greater consideration on the social relationships that citations represent. They are well suited to addressing the principal limitation of the study, its restriction to journals within the defined community rather than journals in general. Originality/value – This extends traditional approaches to citation analysis, provides an important new technique in identifying emergent collective identities and provides insight into the history and nature of the heterodox economic community.

An Economists View of Web Science

Social Networking explained by an economic model of cost and benefit.

Rapid climate change: an overview for economists

The possibility of future rapid climatic changes is a pressing concern amongst climate scientists. For example, an abrupt collapse of the ocean's Thermohaline Circulation (THC) would rapidly cool the northern hemisphere and reduce the net global primary productivity of vegetation, according to computer models. It is unclear how to incorporate such low-probability, high-impact events into the development of economics policies. This paper reviews the salient aspects of rapid climate change relevant to economists and policy makers. The main scientific certainties and uncertainties are clearly delineated, with the aim of guiding economics goals and ensuring that they retain fidelity to their scientific underpinnings.

Economists are not dismal, the world is not a Petri dish and other reasons for optimism

One of the recurrent themes in the debate around how to ensure global food security concerns the capacity of the planet to support its growing population. Neo-Malthusian thinking suggests that we are in a situation in which further expansion of the population cannot be supported and that the population checks, with their dismal consequences envisaged by Malthus, will lead to a new era of stagnant incomes and population. More sophisticated models of the link between population and income are less gloomy however. They see population growth as an integral component of the economic growth which is necessary to ensure that the poorest achieve food security. An undue focus on the difficulties of meeting the demands of the increasing population risks damaging this growth. Instead, attention should be focused on ensuring that the conditions to ensure that economic growth accompanies population growth are in place.

Consensus and dissension among Mexican economists

Includes bibliography

Greek Economists for Reform.com

This blog publishes articles by leading academic economists on issues relevant to economic policy and reforms in Greece. The crisis in Greece is also a time of opportunity: ambitious reforms can be undertaken that will not only stave off bankruptcy, but also modernize Greece’s economy and raise the productivity and incomes of Greek citizens on a sustainable basis. The articles in this blog aim to offer constructive proposals and impartial analysis of potential, proposed or implemented reforms that are based on the principles of modern economics and on lessons from recent cutting-edge research.

Conversations between Anthropologists and Economists

Interdisciplinary citation patterns and other indicators of the flow and sharing of academic knowledge suggest that economists and anthropologists do not talk to each other. Previous studies of this puzzling trend have typically attributed the problem to methodological differences between the two disciplines. Although there are significant differences between economics and anthropology in behavioral assumptions and modes of inquiry, similar differences exist between them and other disciplines (some with much heavier volumes of cross-citations with economics or anthropology), suggesting that the source of the problem lies elsewhere. This paper considers the problem at a deeper level by examining systematic differences in the preferences, capabilities, and literary cultures of economists and anthropologists. Adopting a rhetorical perspective, I consider not the firms, households, or tribes as the principal objective of analysis in the two disciplines, but the conversations between these units. These conversations (through non-verbal as well as verbal media) can be grouped into two genres, based on the type of problem they aim to solve. Those in the first genre aim to solve the problem of interest--how to align the incentives of the parties involved. Those in the second genre deal with the problem of knowledge--how to align localized, and dispersed information. Economists are interested and capable of dealing with primarily, if not exclusively, the first genre, and anthropologists focus on the second. This difference has far reaching consequences for how economists and anthropologists conduct their own scholarly conversations with their own colleagues, why they are having difficulty talking to each other across disciplinary boundaries, and what can be done to change the patterns of communication.