Marginal Revolution

Persistent Inequality in Publishing in Economics

Tyler Cowen — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 19:30:13 +0000

This paper documents new facts about concentration in publishing in economics. First, the profession grows downward . The number of economists grew almost sixfold since 1990, but new entrants publish in lower-tier journals while incumbents hold the top. Second, there is high and persistent concentration at the top. Along with the downward growth, the top-1% authors accounted for 38.4% of top-5 publication credit in 1990 and for 78.3% in 2025. Third, the persistence is widespread within cohorts, within subfields, and within gender. Fourth, new journals only slightly dilute concentration. Fifth, elite authors diversify on topics faster than the rest of the profession. We interpret the findings with a screening model of attention under information overload. The evidence is consistent with the model: as the field grows, citations concentrate on established work and the conditional citation premium of top-author papers narrows.

By Ricardo Dahis, via the excellent Samir Varma.

The post Persistent Inequality in Publishing in Economics appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Dismalist. OK, but to stretch the analogy a bit, ... by Gilligan
In reply to Dismalist. I dunno. The profession has grown but ... by JFA
“a screening model of attention under information overload” ... by mkt42
In reply to Gilligan. Yes. But I think academia is like ... by Dismalist
In reply to Engineer. IDK. Academic cites are a bit of a self ... by Gilligan
Plus 5 more...

The wisdom of Conor Sen

Tyler Cowen — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:56:28 +0000

The age 20-24 unemployment rate is now ~unchanged since the AI boom began…

Link and picture here.

The post The wisdom of Conor Sen appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to EBUG. I wonder if it's one of the effects of AI. ... by mkt42
In reply to Mark C. I get tons of job notifications for Data ... by Mitchell
Is there a data set that shows work force participation and ... by David C
It’s up slightly for 25-34 year olds ... by Student
The AI infrastructure boom should have increased employment for ... by Mark C
Plus 10 more...

Monday assorted links

Tyler Cowen — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 15:30:03 +0000

1. Robots learn from puffins?

2. Claims about cats (NYT). I guess they have no Coase theorem after all.

3. Iran and the Strait (WSJ).

4. “I used to be one of these people.” And Timothy Lee. As for this exchange, in the 2040 scenario strong AI is a power magnet in a way that milk or eggs or electricity are not. I do understand the claim that one might prefer this extreme governmental power to a greater role for the private sector, but extreme governmental power it is going to be, again at least under the 2040 scenario assumptions about the spread and efficacy of AI.

5. Scott Sumner engages with Fable on market monetarism.

6. “The number of students admitted to Ph.D. programs this fall dropped 15 percent from the previous year, according to data from over 50 top research universities…” (NYT) Partial data suggest that the year before the decline may have been eleven percent.

7. Inequality does not seem to erode democracy.

8. Kip Thorne on Villarroel.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Tom Meadowcroft. You touch on it as an aside, but ... by Neurotic
In reply to Dismalist. Yep, crime is an example of the ... by mkt42
In reply to Ai. But that is exactly the problem with the UFO ... by Neurotic
In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. “#7, paraphrase: social ... by Kaz Stanczak
2. That's certainly why they groom people. 7. Is income the ... by TWBC
Plus 10 more...

“Markets are competitive if and only if P != NP”

Tyler Cowen — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 06:55:13 +0000

I prove that competitive market outcomes require computational intractability. If P = NP, firms can efficiently solve the collusion detection problem, identifying deviations from cooperative agreements in complex, noisy markets and thereby making collusion sustainable as an equilibrium. If P != NP, the collusion detection problem is computationally infeasible for markets satisfying a natural instance-hardness condition on their demand structure, rendering punishment threats non-credible and collusion unstable. Combined with Maymin (2011), who proved that market efficiency requires P = NP, this yields a fundamental impossibility: markets can be informationally efficient or competitive, but not both. Artificial intelligence, by expanding firms’ computational capabilities, is pushing markets from the competitive regime toward the collusive regime, explaining the empirical emergence of algorithmic collusion without explicit coordination.

From Philip Z. Maymin. File under “Claims…”

Via Sonia Farrell Pearson.

The post “Markets are competitive if and only if P != NP” appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

adding “perfectly” in front of “competitive” would be ... by Dagon
In reply to Bob. Change the title/thrust to “A Good ... by dmcharette
The two winners: Industrial Organization and Austrian Economics. by Keith
I thought most collusion detection came from stool pigeons. by Old Programmer
> P = NP, firms can efficiently solve the collusion detection ... by Anonymous
Plus 10 more...

My talk at DeepMind

Tyler Cowen — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 04:58:41 +0000

Here is a transcript of my remarks, anything from the audience (Q&A with comments) has been cut out. Excerpt:

The problem will not be how does my life get meaning, but how do I deal with all the meaning my life will have? A kind of exhaustion. And this comes up in the labor supply debates. So again, there’s one point of view like, oh, there’s AGI, there’s going to be mass unemployment. The more moderate, reasonable point of view is not that there’s mass unemployment. Many jobs still require humans. There’s comparative advantage. But total leisure time will go up. I think that’s likely the correct view, but across what time horizon?

If you think about your lives today, like I’m much busier and I’m busier because of AI. I’m working much harder. I don’t have to do that. But the point is my relative wage gradient for working harder today, it’s really quite extreme. And if I were, say, an 18 year old, I would feel I really had to work hard not to fall behind. There’s this new thing coming to the world. All sorts of people will be jumping on it. If I only start looking at it when I’m age 23, I’m behind by X number of years. So I would truly be working hard. At age 64, I don’t have to feel I need to work that hard. I can always just say if I choose to, well, I’m going to run out the clock, as they say, just kind of step back and wait until I die and I’ll be fine. I’m not going to do that.

Every time a new model comes out, I’m still excited. I used to be very excited. But they come out more and more frequently. And now I look at my calendar and I’m like, uh-oh, could you all wait a week, please? Because you want to be ready. You want to play around with it. You want to test it out. You want to talk about it with your friends. It’s a slight bit of an exhaustion. And again, for you all working here, you have access to models that haven’t come out yet or maybe will never come out. But all the time, you have fresh stimuli. And I hope, I think you must all be drenched in meaning. And you’re like, oh, my goodness, someone else tells me, look at this new model. What do I do with that?

So I think sometimes, like, when will the time come when the leisure dividend from AI arrives? No one is forcing you to work harder. But there’s a substitution effect from the higher implicit wage on your future earnings that if you work harder now, it will have a payoff. You’ll at least avoid being behind.

Interesting throughout, definitely recommended.

The post My talk at DeepMind appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to rayward. The tails are the tails, whether the ... by rayward
In reply to TMC. Yeah, swimming 3.5 miles in the Pacific, ... by Mark Bahner
In reply to BC. Well, one example of wasted time for new ... by Norman Quick
In reply to TMC. “Nothing is so unsettling to a social ... by Dismalist
In reply to TMC. That's exactly the point. Keynes has enough ... by Dismalist
Plus 10 more...

Sunday assorted links

Tyler Cowen — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 17:21:15 +0000

1. NYT overview of Foucault.

2. Solar mirrors to turn night into day? (NYT)

3. How does the butterfly retain the memories of the caterpillar?

4. The Taliban declares war on smartphones.

5. Links from Sam Enright.

6. Why are U.S. ambulance rides so costly?

7. Richard Hanania on The Sopranos.

The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Dagon. Exactly. To call a pupa's brain “liquid ... by mkt42
In reply to M. Allow me to simplify: it is cheaper for ... by Anti-Gnostic
In reply to &. That's only a very recent change. US ... by JonFraz
In reply to Frank D. Here's a related question: If “The ... by M
In reply to mkt42. Thanks! About zebrafish and the ... by Raghu Parthasarathy
Plus 10 more...

The Trump Administration’s Threat to Scientific Research

Alex Tabarrok — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 11:18:43 +0000

In The Nationalization of American Science I warned that the Trump administration’s rewriting of the seemingly mundane Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance was a tremendous threat to America’s historically successful decentralized system of science funding. Many others are now sounding the alarm.

It’s not surprising that organizations like the AAAS oppose the rule, albeit with unusually strongly worded dissents:

This latest move is a brazen power grab by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely. If this rule becomes final, Americans’ hopes for future cures, national security and economic strength will rely on the scientific sensibilities of the nation’s chief bureaucrat. Alzheimer’s disease will not be cured by a budget analyst from either political party.

But we are now seeing strong pushback from independent thinkers such as:

Grayson Logue writing at The Dispatch:

A sweeping new rule proposed by the Trump administration could remake how that money is awarded and give the president and his political appointees discretion to cancel funding or target recipients for virtually any reason—with little opportunity for recourse.

White House officials argue the new rule is necessary to assert more accountability over federal grantmaking, but observers fear the shift will expand opportunities for politicization, abuse, and even corruption for an administration that has already demonstrated a penchant for using the levers of the federal government to punish partisan enemies and reward ideological allies.

Dan Drezner:

if I was trying to ruin American leadership in scientific research this is pretty much the kind of rule I would write…One of the genuine difficulties with observing the second Trump term is that the assault on state capacity and impartiality has been so multipronged that it is difficult to keep track of everything going on. But these proposed rule changes are monumental and catastrophic.

and Noah Smith:

MAGA’s attack on science is even worse than it looks…despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars.

It may be that the Trump administration has pushed too far, but my real worry is that we are losing an equilibrium. Science was never completely independent of politics, of course, but even at the worst of times, funding was decentralized and the culture-war material that dominated the headlines was never more than a tiny fraction of the whole. Like an independent judiciary, independent science has been an American virtue. COVID policy, gender policy, and now the Trump administration’s weaponization of these mistakes may have destroyed that equilibrium.

As I wrote in my original post, we are adopting the loser policies of authoritarian nations but those policies are the norm elsewhere for a reason. Centralized control of science is the default because it serves the people in power of whatever party. Decentralization is the fragile exception—a historically unusual achievement that is easier to destroy than rebuild.

Addendum: And here is Andrew Gelman.

The post The Trump Administration’s Threat to Scientific Research appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Gilligan. American democracy has never been about ... by Agorabum
Major stealth censorship in this thread #libertarianism by Gilligan
In reply to JFA. “The Mercatus Center was founded by ... by Buster Keaton
In reply to Chuck Kotlarz. In the US, he with the Electoral ... by Anti-Gnostic
Let's say that Trump is a generational threat to the republic. ... by anonprof
Plus 10 more...

A Tale of Three Cities

Tyler Cowen — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 07:17:21 +0000

The author is Bob Harris, and the subtitle is The Life and Times of Lord Daer 1763-1794. Who is Lord Daer? Don’t worry about that! So many books on the Scottish Enlightenment cover one particular thing, but somehow fail to give the reader a proper sense of life on the ground. I found this is the best book I know for actually communicating what it was like to live during, and participate in, the Scottish Enlightenment. Maybe to achieve that end it is necessary to focus on the life of a figure who was less than totally famous? Definitely recommended, this book should be better known.

The post *A Tale of Three Cities* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Patrick. Publication date is 2015, pre-AI. by uber eats shoots and leaves
The conventional wisdom is that the French Revolution was the ... by rayward
“This is a story about the rise of a new kind of British ... by &
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the ... by Dickens
He doesn't say anything about it being written by “AI”…so ... by Patrick
This is the time I've seen an in-print book recommended here ... by Logan

Who Thinks Like an Economist?

Tyler Cowen — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 06:18:59 +0000

That is the title of a recent book by Beatrice Magistro. Some key results are:

Economic knowledge consistently predicts higher support for welfare-enhancing policies (Eurozone membership, free trade, and EU immigration), independent on whether individuals stand to gain or lose initially from globalization. This challenges conventional self-interest accounts and instead highlights the role of economic knowledge — and potentially time preferences — in shaping globalization attitudes.

Economic knowledge also predicts a lower discount rate, even after adjusting for years of education.

I would say that over the years I have altered my perspective a bit on these issues. I used to think these factors were correlated, in large part, through a kind of wisdom. I now think that more of the effect, however much I may sympathize with it, runs through sociological expectation and perceived obligation, combined with conformity and signaling pressures.

The post *Who Thinks Like an Economist?* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

Everyone wants immigration. But it has to follow the law. ... by Mort Main
In reply to rsm. Sits deep. by Dismalist
In reply to Dismalist. Gemini: Dismalist’s comment is a ... by rsm
Economic knowledge correlates with education which hs come to ... by gVOR10
In reply to Good question. “It's not that the econ lens is ... by Dismalist
Plus 10 more...

New space policy Substack from Mercatus

Tyler Cowen — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 04:03:44 +0000

We are Rebecca, Max, and Aakrith. We are researchers at The Mercatus Center, a research organization dedicated to classical liberal ideas. Rebecca is a philosopher, Max is an economist, and Aakrith is a political scientist. Together, we are the Space Team, and this is our Substack.

We’re here to persuade you that space policy is increasingly important. And that getting space policy right offers humankind astonishing opportunities. In particular, we’re currently thinking hard about innovation, competition, federalism, property rights, and life in space.

Here is the link.

The post New space policy Substack from Mercatus appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

This Space Team should keep on eye on NASA disfunction and ... by mikeInThe716
In reply to Tom Meadowcroft. “The top determinant of space ... by Lord Action
“Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, no nation can claim ... by rayward
In reply to Tom Meadowcroft. It's like constituting post WW1 ... by Rahul
In reply to Dismalist. re-spurred, of course. by Dismalist
Plus 4 more...

Mental health sentences to ponder

Tyler Cowen — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 18:13:49 +0000

Christoph Henking and Ben Baumberg Geiger found that while there has been a steep rise in the share of young Britons reporting a mental illness, the share of people who say a mental health problem limits their day-to-day functioning has barely budged.

…when asked if they would consider someone experiencing typical fluctuations in mood (described as broad happiness but occasional moments of worry, frustration or loss of confidence) as having a mental illness, more than half of young Americans say yes, up from just a fifth 15 years ago. Older people’s views show no such change.

Here is more from John Burn-Murdoch at the FT. I would second his numerous caveats, and you should not consider this at all conclusive. But the alternative perspective is not conclusive either.

The post Mental health sentences to ponder appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to Melmoth. The crap parts of my job don’t make me ... by Old Programmer
In reply to Tom Meadowcroft. ... by Old Programmer
There is an interesting but not surprising amount of mood ... by Ricardo
In reply to rsm. I certainly shall forgive you if you'd only ... by dearieme
In reply to Ted Craig. 1960s saying: “I wanna be different ... by dearieme
Plus 10 more...

Saturday assorted links

Tyler Cowen — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 16:23:17 +0000

1. The tiny economist on my shoulder.

2. Beethoven in Indian classical raga.

3. Too many books? (NYT)

4. Roon on slop.

5. MIE. Taylor Swift.

6. Rolling Stones fact of the day.

7. More balloons!

8. Seb Krier.

The post Saturday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to BC. “…it may turn out that progress in many ... by Drew
4. I loved Nabeel S. Qureshi response to Roon. It is filled ... by Snowy
In reply to BC. AI Overview: Feyerabend would likely get a ... by rsm
8. Seb Krier—Concepts of a Plan Context is that which is ... by RAD
In reply to &. This is correct. It’s why companies like ... by Observer
Plus 10 more...

Winston Marshall podcasts with me on AI

Tyler Cowen — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 07:20:40 +0000

He is from the star musical group Mumford & Sons, but is also an excellent podcaster. Here is the episode, recorded before the Fable ban was lifted:

Of course I do sneak in some music analogies, including a mention of Dock Boggs.

The post Winston Marshall podcasts with me on AI appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Comments

In reply to MT. 'uncoordinated hordes of bumbling idiots' is ... by Parker
In reply to Neurotic. My bad. I've been trolling MR almost ... by Neurotic
I'm just starting the podcast. The idea TC seems to be pushing ... by Neurotic
In reply to dearieme. Rubbish. One has about equal chance ... by Neurotic
In reply to Aaron A. You jumped to a conclusion about ... by Justin Chang
Plus 10 more...

Progress against dementia

Tyler Cowen — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 04:29:44 +0000

Mr Stallard has been working for a decade to corroborate this revelation. His findings have, if anything, become even more striking. Last year he and some colleagues published research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that, whereas 40 years ago three in every ten Americans aged 85-89 had dementia, by 2024 just one in ten had it (see chart 1). What is more, America is not the only beneficiary of this trend. Between 1988 and 2015 the share of older people being diagnosed with dementia fell by 13% a decade across six countries in North America and Europe, according to a study of almost 50,000 people by Frank Wolters of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, and colleagues.

Some smaller studies have also found big declines. Data from the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked three generations in an American town, show an average drop in new dementia cases of 20% per decade over almost 40 years between the late 1970s and early 2010s. Those who were entering their dotage when Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky” was topping the charts (2013) were 44% less likely to have dementia than those who were doing so when Sting was urging Roxanne to switch off her red light (1978).

Whereas most earlier studies had simply pooled elderly people and then applied a statistical adjustment for age, Mr Stallard looked at narrow bands of ages to compare different cohorts of people over 50 years. By examining the changes between each successive cohort, he calculates that dementia rates have been declining by 2.5-3% for each calendar-year cohort.

Here is more from Jonathan Rosenthal at The Economist. You can think of this as the new instantiation of the Flynn Effect…

The post Progress against dementia appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.