And Konrad, by the way, has worldwide reputation.
German Market
-
His website lists 18 refereed publications either currently forthcoming or in the 2019 issue of some journal. Extrapolating to the full year that makes about 25 pubs. Thus, he spends on average just 2 weeks on a paper, including revisions and aside from all the other stuff he has to do at the ifo. I call this pretty efficient.
You mean having no shame and ridiculing economic research? He is unworthy of a professor title.
^try to see his ranking when only counting A and A+ publications. Oh, wait, where did he disappear?
Quantity has its own quality.
-
There are two separate issues here. Not sure what you mean with "Leibniz institute presidents".
Leibniz institute presidents comprise e.g. the ifo Institute, i.e. Clemens Fuest. Similarly, you could think of Marcel Fratzscher at DIW, Gabriel Felbermayr in Kiel, etc.. My sense is that these are people with sufficiently good academic credentials to sustain a serious conversation with economists. To be honest, I do not think that candidates were standing in queues to get these jobs. Most academic-research-oriented economists are not keen on such jobs. The current presidents balance the tradeoff between good academic credentials and the willingness to have a rather political/management-intensive job pretty well.
What to me is the bigger scandal are the MPI directors. Max Planck Institutes are supposed to be at the forefront of research, doing fundamental work for the discipline. The sky should be the limit (and indeed it is, in terms of budget). This may be true for many MPI directors in the sciences, but is certainly not true for Econ. Since Hellwig retired, the economics Max Planck Institutes are a joke. Not one of the directors can be said to be a leader in his field, someone with worldwide recognition. Sutter? Konrad? Boersch-Supan? Gimme a break. Like him or not, the only person of that stature in Germany currently is Armin Falk, and he prefers to spend private money.My understanding is that the MPIs are very much driven by citation metrics. Have a look at Audretsch, Konrad or Harhoff at Google Scholar and then compare this to NFS or Scheuer. One can argue about journal rankings but the MPI directors are influential.
-
There are two separate issues here. Not sure what you mean with "Leibniz institute presidents".
Leibniz institute presidents comprise e.g. the ifo Institute, i.e. Clemens Fuest. Similarly, you could think of Marcel Fratzscher at DIW, Gabriel Felbermayr in Kiel, etc.. My sense is that these are people with sufficiently good academic credentials to sustain a serious conversation with economists. To be honest, I do not think that candidates were standing in queues to get these jobs. Most academic-research-oriented economists are not keen on such jobs. The current presidents balance the tradeoff between good academic credentials and the willingness to have a rather political/management-intensive job pretty well.
What to me is the bigger scandal are the MPI directors. Max Planck Institutes are supposed to be at the forefront of research, doing fundamental work for the discipline. The sky should be the limit (and indeed it is, in terms of budget). This may be true for many MPI directors in the sciences, but is certainly not true for Econ. Since Hellwig retired, the economics Max Planck Institutes are a joke. Not one of the directors can be said to be a leader in his field, someone with worldwide recognition. Sutter? Konrad? Boersch-Supan? Gimme a break. Like him or not, the only person of that stature in Germany currently is Armin Falk, and he prefers to spend private money.My understanding is that the MPIs are very much driven by citation metrics. Have a look at Audretsch, Konrad or Harhoff at Google Scholar and then compare this to NFS or Scheuer. One can argue about journal rankings but the MPI directors are influential.
This. NP also has way more citations than for instance Scheuer. Not everyone wants to work on topics that Top 5 editors care about.
-
NPs papers have nothing to do with research. CDU propaganda from someone who wrote an external phd konrad-adenauer-Stiftung thesis within three yrs without giving a sh*t about getting a proper education. His papers are descriptive and we learn nothing from them except for his conservative market-liberal ideology. If you are so ideological that u think u have all the answers u are not a researcher but a demagogue. He is doing us a disservice with his existence and it is a disgrace that LMU tolerates this.
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with topics, my dear. Top-5 journals do publish excellent, creative, sophisticated applied/empirical papers on political economy, public finance but not the garbage mass-production that Potrafke sh*ts on editor‘s desks by the minute.
Der Potrafke hat einfach zu wenig Hirnmasse, um mal länger über etwas nachzudenken und dicke Bretter zu bohren. Das merkt man sofort, wenn man ihn das erste mal trifft. Als Hausmeister, Angestellter in der Stadtverwaltung oder Bauarbeiter wäre er nützlicher für die Gesellschaft.
This. NP also has way more citations than for instance Scheuer. Not everyone wants to work on topics that Top 5 editors care about.
-
The people running EJPE and PC are also mostly ideologues of the old white men type. They share his ideology and usually get very, very bad submissions. His papers are in relative terms less bad and send the right ideological message. Still very little academic merit.
But somehow NP created the right network of friends and buddies to keep a stream of publications going into EJPE and PC. You have to give him credit for that. Maybe.
-
This has absolutely nothing to do with topics, my dear. Top-5 journals do publish excellent, creative, sophisticated applied/empirical papers on political economy, public finance but not the garbage mass-production that Potrafke sh*ts on editor‘s desks by the minute.
Der Potrafke hat einfach zu wenig Hirnmasse, um mal länger über etwas nachzudenken und dicke Bretter zu bohren. Das merkt man sofort, wenn man ihn das erste mal trifft. Als Hausmeister, Angestellter in der Stadtverwaltung oder Bauarbeiter wäre er nützlicher für die Gesellschaft.
This. NP also has way more citations than for instance Scheuer. Not everyone wants to work on topics that Top 5 editors care about.Have you read any of the many threads on this site about what (and whom) actually Top 5 editors publish? Sure the papers appear more sophisticated that NP's on the surface, but I am certain that we learn as much or as little from them about Economics than from NPs in like 95% of the cases.
-
I agree. It's a shame that Dreher and his compadres have somehow established a grip on political economy and partly even development economics in Germany.
The people running EJPE and PC are also mostly ideologues of the old white men type. They share his ideology and usually get very, very bad submissions. His papers are in relative terms less bad and send the right ideological message. Still very little academic merit.