No, actually not. Let me elaborate on citations is not influence.
a) If citations are influence we should see - promotion by citations and - highly cited professor should have the best positions. Sit back, relax, google who are the highest cited professors in germany.
NP!
You should remember that Scheuer declined several top 10 offers in the US before moving to Zurich, he moved well before coming up at Stanford. The top institutions know that theory gets cited less than empirical work---a rate of about 1:10 is often assumed. Scheuer's record is extremely competitive, Strack recently got tenure at Yale and Wolitzky at MIT with similar citation counts. If you ask anyone who the top person in Public Finance currently is in Europe, few would disagree that it's Scheuer.
This thread is relevant on the topic:
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-a-top-5-is-more-valuable-than-1000-citations
This guy gets it right:
"Economists do not ignore citations, at least not at the top level assessments.
If I see a several-year old top 5 with 10 citations, I view that as an embarrassment to the person.
If I see someone with many top 5s and few citations overall, I know that person doesn’t really matter much in the profession. And that’s correct: it is extremely hard to think of someone who is important in their files but not well cited."
The mysterious 1:10 bulls**t rate...
You should remember that Scheuer declined several top 10 offers in the US before moving to Zurich, he moved well before coming up at Stanford. The top institutions know that theory gets cited less than empirical work---a rate of about 1:10 is often assumed. Scheuer's record is extremely competitive, Strack recently got tenure at Yale and Wolitzky at MIT with similar citation counts. If you ask anyone who the top person in Public Finance currently is in Europe, few would disagree that it's Scheuer.
The mysterious 1:10 bulls**t rate...
I was curious, so I looked for some evidence on this rate. I found this: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21754.pdf (also published in JEL, 2018)
On p.56, the author compares top5 publications with different foci, e.g., theory vs. empirical. While it is true that theory gets fewer citations than empirical research, the rate appears to be 1:2 rather than 1:10.
Perhaps other people habe different figures? 1:10 seems to be very generous for theorists ...
Isn't it weird then that LMU tries to get a Public Finance guy on a W3 in macro?
You should remember that Scheuer declined several top 10 offers in the US before moving to Zurich, he moved well before coming up at Stanford. The top institutions know that theory gets cited less than empirical work---a rate of about 1:10 is often assumed. Scheuer's record is extremely competitive, Strack recently got tenure at Yale and Wolitzky at MIT with similar citation counts. If you ask anyone who the top person in Public Finance currently is in Europe, few would disagree that it's Scheuer.
Care to elaborate on why that's the case? Is it because Public Finance is likely to get higher media coverage and hence more publicity for LMU?
LMU people in control don't want to hire macro. They'll try to get a behavioural or public finance type on the position.
No. They tried to get Scheuer on NF Huber who will not return from the presidency. This is NF Illing.
Isn't it weird then that LMU tries to get a Public Finance guy on a W3 in macro?
You should remember that Scheuer declined several top 10 offers in the US before moving to Zurich, he moved well before coming up at Stanford. The top institutions know that theory gets cited less than empirical work---a rate of about 1:10 is often assumed. Scheuer's record is extremely competitive, Strack recently got tenure at Yale and Wolitzky at MIT with similar citation counts. If you ask anyone who the top person in Public Finance currently is in Europe, few would disagree that it's Scheuer.