Search Results for ‘academic insults’
Tullock on the Corporation
| Peter Klein |
Gordon Tullock is retiring this year from George Mason Law School. In the coming weeks you’ll probably be reading a lot of Tullock tributes and Tullock anecdotes (for example, about his famous put-downs). I don’t have much to add on the personal side, but I thought I’d share a remark or two about one of my favorite, and little-known, Tullock articles, “The New Theory of Corporations,” in Erich Streissler, ed., Roads to Freedom: Essays in Honor of Friedrich A. von Hayek (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969).
Tullock offers a number of insights into the corporate form and, in particular, the Berle-Means problem, that are well ahead of their time. As Tullock notes in the essay, he draws heavily here on Henry Manne’s work (and, he tells us, many conversations with Manne about these issues). In 1969 the consensus view was that corporations were almost exclusively controlled by salaried managers, running firms in their own interests and largely ignoring the wishes of shareholders. However, Tullock notes:
The theory of management control of corporations, of course, is subject to one very obvious difficulty. It offers no explanation of how managements are changed, and changes of management are an everyday occurrence as any reader of the Wall Street Journal can appreciate. It is true that presidents of large corporations frequently stay in office rather longer than the president of the United States, but they don’t stay in office as long as congressmen and senators, and we would hardly argue that the long tenure of congressmen and senators indicates that we do not have democracy in the United States. Thus, the current orthodoxy that the management actually runs the corporation cannot explain how the management got there or how the everyday occurrence of a change in management occurs. For some reason, this does not seem to disturb the partisans of the . . . Berle and Means theory. (more…)
4 comments 27 August 2008
Scandinavian Economists
| Peter Klein |
Frederic Sautet reports on a reception honoring Gordon Tullock at George Mason University Law School. When someone wondered aloud why Tullock didn’t share the 1986 Nobel Prize with James Buchanan, Tullock responded that he blames a remark he made around that time that “there were more good economists in the state of Virginia than in all of Scandinavia.” The sensitive Swedes must not have been familiar with Tullock’s style.
Add comment 8 March 2007
Top Posts of 2006
| Peter Klein |
As 2006 draws to a close we reflect on our most popular posts of the year. (Actually, we’ve only been in operation since April, so these are our most popular posts of all time, but you get the idea.) Here’s the list, followed by some commentary:
1. Is Math More Precise Than Words?
2. Intellectual Property: The New Backlash
3. Dilemmas of Formal Economic Theory
4. We Need Some Economics of Pomo
5. The New Bashing of Economics: The Case of Management Theory
6. Has Corporate Corruption Increased?
7. HRM in Heaven and Hell
8. Yale’s New MBA Curriculum: “Perspectives,” Not Functions
9. Malthus and the “Dismal Science”
10. Formal Economic Theory: Beautiful but Useless?
11. Why Do Sociologists Lean Left — Really Left?
12. The SWOT Model May Be Wrong
13. Multi-Culturality and Economic Organization
14. What Do We Really Know About Organizations?
15. Academic Insults: CCSM Edition
16. A Nobel for Entrepreneurship?
17. Price as a Signal of Quality
18. Economics: Puzzles or Problems?
19. Another Irritating Practice
20. Market-Based Management
Now, we’re talking small numbers here — the Drudge Report we ain’t — so the ranking is highly sensitive to random events, like an incoming link from Marginal Revolution. Nonetheless, some clear patterns emerge. (more…)
Add comment 31 December 2006
Academic Insults: CCSM Edition
| Peter Klein |
Time to begin a new thread on academic insults (1, 2, 3). Overhead at the CCSM:
Session chair to audience: “Thank you, [Presenter], for your excellent time management.” [But not your paper.]
Discussant to presenter: “Your paper is beautifully written. When I got to the end I realized that I totally disagree with it, but I couldn’t remember where in the paper you started to go wrong.”
Audience member to presenter: “Your paper reminds me of my lecture on fallacies of strategic management research. You committed every one of them.”
7 comments 13 December 2006
The “Essay Tradition” in Economics
| Peter Klein |
On the triumph of formalism in economics (addressed here and here) — not to mention academic insults — I give you this passage in Fred Kaplan’s The Wizards of Armageddon, a history of the RAND Corporation. The subject is RAND mathematician Albert Wohlstetter, the chief theoretician behind the development of US nuclear strategy in the 1950s and 1960s. Writes Kaplan:
[T]he social science division was removed from the rest of RAND — literally, 2500 miles away, in Washington, D.C. Most [of the social scientists] were figuratively removed, too: quantitative analysis had triumphed at RAND, through the spread of systems analysis and game theory and — until the Wohlstetter studies, which put the economids division on top of the strategic business — through the domination over the rest of RAND by the mathematics division. [Wohlstetter, though a mathematician, was associated with the economics division.] These sorts of studies were scientific, so it was thought; there were numbers, calculations, rigorously checked, sometimes on a computer. maybe the numbers were questionable, but they were tangible, unlike the theorizing, the Kremlinology, the academic historical research and interpretation produced by social science. Wohlstetter snootily denigrated all such works as being in “the essay tradition.”
Add comment 29 September 2006
Tacky Editors
| Nicolai Foss |
Here is one more entry in another O&M feuilleton, namely our “Jerehmiads” on publication in management and related fields (e.g., here and here.) (The term was introduced by Omar at orgtheory.net, who despite being a brand-new assistant professor is also a specialist in the publication game; see his comments here.)
I recently had a paper rejected for one of the top-4 management journals. It is the third time I have been rejected from this particular journal. However, every time something a little weird has happened: 3-4 days after the rejection, the editor has approached me, asking whether I would like to review a paper. I can understand the rationale: Now that I have enjoyed the service of this journal, I need to pay back. But, isn’t it just a little bit tacky? Or am I too wimpy? (or too much like Jeremiah?). Anybody who has had similar experiences?
7 comments 11 September 2006
Academic Insults: Gordon Tullock Edition
| Peter Klein |
Nicolai recently started a thread on academic insults. Alex Tabarrok has created one exclusively for insults delivered by Gordon Tullock, a legendary put-down artist. To wit:
“Gordon,” I asked, “do you think we should ban child labor?” “No, keep working.”
The other day Gordon asked me to read one of his papers and I pointed out a few typos. “Excellent,” he said, “this will surely be your greatest contribution to economics.”
Gordon is prone to pressing people with difficult questions. One of my colleagues responded, “Gordon, I’m not that good at thinking on my feet.” Without missing a beat Gordon pulled up a chair and said “well sit down and we’ll see how you do then.”
Bob Lawson adds this one:
After going through the model and somewhat apologetically presenting my results which didn’t show what the model predicted. Gordon says to me, “That’s ok, Bob, a lot of other people haven’t found that result either.”
Add comment 17 August 2006
Academic Insults II: Nasty Reviews
| Nicolai Foss |
My earlier post on Academic Insults attracted quite a lot of views, and some comments, including some comments detailing insults that I allegedly distributed (of which I, of course, have no recollection whatsoever). I also received mails from people who didn’t want to share the insults they had suffered with the blogosphere. Anyway, here is what almost amounts to a sequel, namely one on formalized academic insults, better known as nasty reviews. (more…)
6 comments 5 July 2006
Academic Insults
| Nicolai Foss |
I was once told by a prominent German economist over (an otherwise pleasant) dinner: “Nicolai, you have the potential to become a rigorous scientist” (a colleague dryly commented that “at least he said you had the potential”). Well, I ended up doing muzzy management stuff, and, hence, never realized any such potential.
Does anyone out there have any good stories of academic insults that you want to share with the readership of O&M? Perhaps with a little effort we may end with something akin to George Stigler’s Conference Handbook.
Update 1: Here is nice poisonous comment that I received only yesterday but forgot to mention: “Nicolai, you are the master of academic economies of scope” (i.e., excessive recycling).
Update 2: Joe Mahoney reminded me of this classic: “No one can think higher of Professor Z’s paper than I do — and I think the paper is a complete mess.”
Update 3: I just recalled that the German economist mentioned above at a later occasion, a conference dinner, told me: “You know, Nicolai, it is actually really funny, but it turns out — giggle, giggle — that you have more citations than I have, heh-heh-heh.” Oh, the absurdities of this world.
9 comments 13 June 2006
