Some brilliant economists never got a Nobel Prize, simply because their intellectual merits and influences are overshadowed by their ideological preferences that are different from the mainstream and the people in power.
The prime example is Joan Robinson (1903-1983), who wrote positively on the economics of Karl Marx and socialism at the time of Cold War. Her work stood at odds with the Western mainstream economic and political thoughts and failed to cater the ideological needs of the Nobel Prize committee and those behind the game.
Quote from http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/9870#ixzz1ZxvbAulA
Great Britain’s Joan Robinson may be one of the most exciting figures in the history of “the Dismal Science.” An acolyte of the great John Maynard Keynes, her work covered a wide range of economic topics, from neoclassicism to Keynes’s general theory to Marxian theory. Not to mention, her notion of imperfect competition still shows up in every Econ 101 class. Add to that the fact that Robinson’s greatest work, The Accumulation of Capital, was published way back in 1956 but is still widely used as an economics textbook. So why no Nobel? Some say it’s because she’s a female, and no female has ever won the Nobel in Economics. Others say that Robinson’s work over her career was too eclectic, rather than hyperfocused like that of so many other laureates. Still others claim that she was undesirable as a laureate because of her vocal praise for the Chinese Cultural Revolution, a fairly anti-intellectual enterprise.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thesis passed!
From supervisor:
While you were flying the second examiner submitted and I hear from John you have passed. They have made some extensive commnets whih will be very useful to reflect upon. However niether decided to make you do the implied revisions before passing you!! Lucky boy.
While you were flying the second examiner submitted and I hear from John you have passed. They have made some extensive commnets whih will be very useful to reflect upon. However niether decided to make you do the implied revisions before passing you!! Lucky boy.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Updates
經過一輪波折, 最終我決定回歸澳洲, 當lecturer
4, 5月的一番折騰, 好似坐過山車一樣, 大起大落, 勞師動眾由維也納去Perth interview, 花了不少心機卻落空, 反而不久之後另一大學的視像interview卻成功了, 準備沒有前一次的充足, 也沒有親身interview, 反而輕易到手, 有點得來太易的感覺, 不過, 薪酬同職級實在吸引, 幾乎不用考慮就接受了
6, 7月又先後有些發展, 不過到頭來都讓人失望, 可不可以單純一點? 很討厭這種感覺
8月, 回維也納, writing machine重新啟動, 天昏地暗
4, 5月的一番折騰, 好似坐過山車一樣, 大起大落, 勞師動眾由維也納去Perth interview, 花了不少心機卻落空, 反而不久之後另一大學的視像interview卻成功了, 準備沒有前一次的充足, 也沒有親身interview, 反而輕易到手, 有點得來太易的感覺, 不過, 薪酬同職級實在吸引, 幾乎不用考慮就接受了
6, 7月又先後有些發展, 不過到頭來都讓人失望, 可不可以單純一點? 很討厭這種感覺
8月, 回維也納, writing machine重新啟動, 天昏地暗
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Passport is the final exam
Job offered informally confirmed.
H O W E V E R
The UK austerity turns out to be a kind of protectionism. More restrictions on immigration of non-EU citizens means it becomes much more difficult to get a work visa.
The HR department is not going to give me a formal offer until completion of my PhD degree. It seems the CEO does not want to approve my appointment. And even they approve, there is no guarantee since all ultimately depend on the UK border agency. They may doubt that the salary offered is too low, the job ad was posted last August and should be re-advertised to make no British or EU citizen can get it, or I may fail the exam.
I try to speed up the writing up. But at the same time, I am looking for other jobs - especially non-UK jobs.
I am good enough to get a permanent contract equivalent to lecturership right after PhD. Good reference letters, good network, eight first/sole-authored ISI journal publications (comparing to the average 2-3), highly relevant expertise. So what?
After all, passport is the final exam - Do you have a British/EU passport?
H O W E V E R
The UK austerity turns out to be a kind of protectionism. More restrictions on immigration of non-EU citizens means it becomes much more difficult to get a work visa.
The HR department is not going to give me a formal offer until completion of my PhD degree. It seems the CEO does not want to approve my appointment. And even they approve, there is no guarantee since all ultimately depend on the UK border agency. They may doubt that the salary offered is too low, the job ad was posted last August and should be re-advertised to make no British or EU citizen can get it, or I may fail the exam.
I try to speed up the writing up. But at the same time, I am looking for other jobs - especially non-UK jobs.
I am good enough to get a permanent contract equivalent to lecturership right after PhD. Good reference letters, good network, eight first/sole-authored ISI journal publications (comparing to the average 2-3), highly relevant expertise. So what?
After all, passport is the final exam - Do you have a British/EU passport?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Some thoughts about science
my response to a thread in discussion.com:
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
我最喜愛的大陸劇
仙劍三電視劇插曲，現在的大陸劇比港劇好看多了，這套是我喜歡之一 (其實我也沒看過很多)。
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
Saturday, March 26, 2011
老闆2號
前陣子得知老闆2號John患上lymphoma， 有可能是cancer，還在檢查中。本來，生老病死從來都沒什麼可說的，但如果他有事，我想我會從心底的悲哭出來，原因不是僅僅出於我對他的崇拜，還有他是堪稱這個領域內數一數二的人物，失去了他，就如巨星殞落，是學術界的大損失。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)