On a related note, I am sure many of you saw the very good piece on Wynne Godley in the New York Times. The response to this piece by mainstream economists is emblematic of the issue about heterodox journal rankings. For example, Paul Krugman’s response to the piece is both ignorant and dismissive. It’s clear that he is unfamiliar with Godley’s work as he essentially built a straw man by suggesting Godley’s model is really a form of old-fashioned 1950s “hydraulic Keynesianism.” It’s as if Krugman is jealous of the attention that Godley and the Levy Institute got for developing a model that has predictive power. Had his blog post been an academic paper, Krugman would (might?) first cite Godley’s work, then focus the remainder of the paper using mainstream citations (at least he cited Minsky once in his attempt to be more realistic).
Maybe a suggestion for those who rank academic economic journals would be to incorporate a way to measure whether an article (or person’s work) is used in the real world? It is the failure of mainstream economics and economists that has lead to non-economists questioning “What is Economics Good For?”
Finally, as part of endeavors to make heterodox economics visible to others—mainstream economists, publishers, students, etc, we have reserved the Heterodox Economics Booth at the ASSA annual meetings in January 2014. See our second call for support here. We hope many heterodox economic associations, journals, academic programs, and even individuals participate in the booth.
Tae-Hee Jo and Ted P. Schmidt, Editors