August 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad

« It is not everyday that 3 Nobel Prize winners are in the same room considering the foundations of political economy | Main | Virgil Storr as Editor of STUDIES IN EMERGENT ORDER »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I see that this one is the priate issue. :-) Can't wait to get mine in the mail.

Maybe I'll write something on the spontaneous orders of the arts and submit it to RAE. :-) I already wrote a foundational essay on the topic here:

I have been thinking about explanding on the idea more.

Yes Troy this is the Pirate issue. But I also think the Prychitko piece on Minsky is very important in the context of the current discourse.

It's interesting - I've never heard any economist speak ill of Minsky - everyone seems to like him. And yet he's still seen as something of a heterodox perspective. I wonder why that is.


Read Prychitko's piece. It is certainly not speaking ill, but critically assessing his theories.

The Minksy moment came and went in my opinion, and for good reasons. He really doesn't explain what he claims to be explaining, and his "solutions" are not solutions that make any economic sense.

For a counter argument, I suggest looking at the work of the various economists at UMKC. That is probably the school that pays the most attention to Minsky's work.


Oh good! I will then. And I should say, I haven't read Minsky personally, I'd just heard a lot of very different people speak highly of him. And I was thinking more of his business cycle theory than practical proposals - I'm sure there are more critiques of those.

Ya - I follow the MMT/Post-Keynesian stuff at UMKC as best I can. It can be very strange stuff.

JEH is 111 by aggregate rank:

Good that RAE is climbing.

Dear Hayek (I always wanted to write that):

Thank you. In fact, in that aggregate ranking JEH rises significantly as you point out, and the RAE falls significantly. I would like to know more about what impacts the rankings in the respective rankings. But your point is well taken and I appreciate that you pointed it out as a needed correction.

From a quick reading of the aggregate rank it seems to eliminate some of the more quirky aspects of the simple impact factor measure. So that probably does capture better the situation.

It really shows that the RAE has to keep working hard to rise in the journal rankings and we need to work even harder than we have.

Again, thanks for pointing out the aggregate ranking and if you do know what accounts for the significant shifts, I'd appreciate learning how.


In the ranking posted by "Hayek", the Review of Austrian Economics, ranked 425, is behind the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, ranked 336. But both journals are nearly equally far from the top journals. That's pretty much expected.


Again, I would like to understand more about the different measures. In the Simple impact measure RAE ranks 355 and JPKE ranks 300. Why would the RAE fall by 70 spots, and JPKE by 36 spots. Do you have an idea?

On the other hand, the JEH rose significantly from 401 to 111. What is being picked up in the aggregate measure of impact that is lost in the simple impact measure?


I think RAE could greatly broaden its audience through business schools. I've learned a good deal through reading here, OraganizationsandMarkets, and ThinkMarkets. My guess is there are other economics oriented people trained in management that would benefit and be interested in learning more about Austrian economics. At UCLA (school of management) we were exposed to the Chicago School (I was lucky enough to take classes from Demsetz and Klein), organizational economics, and evolutionary economics. Quite a few people took the first year econ sequences. But, beyond a bit of Hayek here and there there was little Austrian Economic to be had.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books