Comments on: Fabians and Gramscians in law and economics http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 08:41:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274175 Thomas Fri, 01 May 2009 05:06:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274175 Henry, I don't know that it's true that citation rankings are heavily influenced by the ranking of the journal you publish in. Leiter in identifying the limitations of the study doesn't give that as one. I don't mean to blame him for my mistake, but it seems to me that if it were as clear as you say, Leiter would have picked up on that. Henry, I don’t know that it’s true that citation rankings are heavily influenced by the ranking of the journal you publish in. Leiter in identifying the limitations of the study doesn’t give that as one. I don’t mean to blame him for my mistake, but it seems to me that if it were as clear as you say, Leiter would have picked up on that.

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274166 Henry Fri, 01 May 2009 01:54:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274166 Thomas - this is better probably than US News and World Report, but still not germane to the point, which is that citation rankings are heavily influenced by the ranking of the journal you publish in, getting into top ranked journals involves persuading busy student editors that they should read and publish your articles, and doing this is a lot easier from a 'recognized' school than an unrecognized one. GMU has done well in becoming a recognized school - at least in some areas - but this is as much due to savvy cultural engineering of the profession as it is to innate quality of GMU staff. The same is true of other law schools, obviously, and some law schools likely benefit a lot more than GMU does from it. This is an exceptionally obvious problem in law schools, because of the tradition of non-anonymous multiple submission of articles, but is true to a lesser extent of other disciplines too. Which is why the moneyball analogy is inapt - academia is a hell of a lot more like figure skating than baseball (there is far more scope for judgement calls as to who is `winning' and who is not. Thomas – this is better probably than US News and World Report, but still not germane to the point, which is that citation rankings are heavily influenced by the ranking of the journal you publish in, getting into top ranked journals involves persuading busy student editors that they should read and publish your articles, and doing this is a lot easier from a ‘recognized’ school than an unrecognized one. GMU has done well in becoming a recognized school – at least in some areas – but this is as much due to savvy cultural engineering of the profession as it is to innate quality of GMU staff. The same is true of other law schools, obviously, and some law schools likely benefit a lot more than GMU does from it. This is an exceptionally obvious problem in law schools, because of the tradition of non-anonymous multiple submission of articles, but is true to a lesser extent of other disciplines too. Which is why the moneyball analogy is inapt – academia is a hell of a lot more like figure skating than baseball (there is far more scope for judgement calls as to who is `winning’ and who is not.

]]> By: Thomas http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274145 Thomas Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:07:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274145 Henry, many legal academics would tell you that the "closest one gets to a neutral metric for success" is Leiter's rankings. And George Mason does well there. See, e.g., http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2007faculty_impact.shtml Henry, many legal academics would tell you that the “closest one gets to a neutral metric for success” is Leiter’s rankings. And George Mason does well there. See, e.g., http://www.leiterrankings.com/faculty/2007faculty_impact.shtml

]]> By: Alex http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274121 Alex Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:55:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274121 As Mrs Merton might say, what was it that first attracted you to lavishly Koch Industries-financed George Mason University? If Leszek Kolakowski was with us, he might extend the theory of the infinite cornucopia to point out that there is always an infinite cornucopia of reasons available to explain successes which are in fact attributable to privilege, good luck, oil, more bigger tanks, or sympathetic octogenarian billionaires, just as there is one to justify whatever course of action we have already decided on. (For that matter, there is a similar cornucopia of reasons available to explain away failures that are in fact attributable to incompetence, stupidity, moral turpitude etc etc.) BTW, I am sure I haven't sent this exact text before. As Mrs Merton might say, what was it that first attracted you to lavishly Koch Industries-financed George Mason University? If Leszek Kolakowski was with us, he might extend the theory of the infinite cornucopia to point out that there is always an infinite cornucopia of reasons available to explain successes which are in fact attributable to privilege, good luck, oil, more bigger tanks, or sympathetic octogenarian billionaires, just as there is one to justify whatever course of action we have already decided on. (For that matter, there is a similar cornucopia of reasons available to explain away failures that are in fact attributable to incompetence, stupidity, moral turpitude etc etc.)

BTW, I am sure I haven’t sent this exact text before.

]]> By: Alex http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274120 Alex Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:52:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274120 As Mrs Merton might say, what was it that first attracted you to lavishly Koch Industries-financed George Mason University? If Leszek Kolakowski was with us, he might extend the theory of the infinite cornucopia to point out that there is always an infinite cornucopia of reasons available to explain successes which are in fact attributable to privilege, good luck, oil, more bigger tanks, or sympathetic octogenarian billionaires, just as there is one to justify whatever course of action we have already decided on. (For that matter, there is a similar cornucopia of reasons available to explain away failures that are in fact attributable to incompetence, stupidity, moral turpitude etc etc.) As Mrs Merton might say, what was it that first attracted you to lavishly Koch Industries-financed George Mason University? If Leszek Kolakowski was with us, he might extend the theory of the infinite cornucopia to point out that there is always an infinite cornucopia of reasons available to explain successes which are in fact attributable to privilege, good luck, oil, more bigger tanks, or sympathetic octogenarian billionaires, just as there is one to justify whatever course of action we have already decided on. (For that matter, there is a similar cornucopia of reasons available to explain away failures that are in fact attributable to incompetence, stupidity, moral turpitude etc etc.)

]]> By: Jeff R. http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274115 Jeff R. Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:01:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274115 Charrua: more often than not, the most powerful private actor interested in regulation is the one using them as a barrier to competition, and thus deeply uninterested in removing them. Charrua: more often than not, the most powerful private actor interested in regulation is the one using them as a barrier to competition, and thus deeply uninterested in removing them.

]]> By: Charrua http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274104 Charrua Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:21:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274104 I wonder how the fact that the anti-regulations position is more likely to be rewarded financially (after all, the most powerful private actor interested in regulations is the one interested in removing them) affects the thinking of technocrats. The spectacular rise of the financial industry, in particular, created an enormous mass of money that was available to influence people. I wonder how the fact that the anti-regulations position is more likely to be rewarded financially (after all, the most powerful private actor interested in regulations is the one interested in removing them) affects the thinking of technocrats. The spectacular rise of the financial industry, in particular, created an enormous mass of money that was available to influence people.

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274099 Matt Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:30:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274099 A few points, mostly meant to build on this account, as I largely agree with it. The most trivial: in the 8th paragraph you say "Posner" where I'm pretty sure you mean"Polsby". Hopefully more interestingly: it doesn't seem to me that when groups like the Olin Foundation give out money to non-libertarians it even must be seen as watering down their impact. Rather, it has an indirect but real strengthening, because legitimizing, effect. If they _only_ gave money to libertarians it would be easy(er) to dismiss them as a crack-pot group, but because they give money to others, too, who are seemingly picked by merit, then getting the money becomes a sign of merit, not of being a crack-pot. In this way "diluting" the money gives it a stronger effect. (You can see something similar in philosophy, though on a much smaller scale, with the Center for Philosophy and Social Policy, and the volumes they publish, at Bowling Green University. The conferences and volumes are _mostly_ filled with non-libertarians, but they exist primarily to provide a venue for libertarian leaning philosophers to get their work published in volumes that non-libertarians will read.) I don't think conflicts with what you say very much, but I do think that "dilution" isn't the right way to think about what happens when the money is given to others than the ideologically pure. With GMU Law, to my mind the best comparison is perhaps with Notre Dame university or something similar. By limiting diversity _within_ the school, each has been able to use the resulting diversity _between_ institutions to attract scholars and students that they otherwise would not have attracted. This usually doesn't allow you to get the very best people- they will still go to the very best schools, if they can. And, it cuts you off from a lot of options and puts a cap on how far one can rise. But, surely some people who might have taught at, say, Iowa or Illinois or Fordham might take a job instead at GMU or Notre Dame because they want to be in the particular culture. This isn't completely incompatible with the Money Ball explanation, but it's independent of it and quite important, I think. (In some cases, Notre Dame, BYU, and, perhaps a bit less for GMU, it's also important for attracting students who otherwise would not go to the school given the other characteristics of the school.) A few points, mostly meant to build on this account, as I largely agree with it. The most trivial: in the 8th paragraph you say “Posner” where I’m pretty sure you mean”Polsby”.

Hopefully more interestingly: it doesn’t seem to me that when groups like the Olin Foundation give out money to non-libertarians it even must be seen as watering down their impact. Rather, it has an indirect but real strengthening, because legitimizing, effect. If they only gave money to libertarians it would be easy(er) to dismiss them as a crack-pot group, but because they give money to others, too, who are seemingly picked by merit, then getting the money becomes a sign of merit, not of being a crack-pot. In this way “diluting” the money gives it a stronger effect. (You can see something similar in philosophy, though on a much smaller scale, with the Center for Philosophy and Social Policy, and the volumes they publish, at Bowling Green University. The conferences and volumes are mostly filled with non-libertarians, but they exist primarily to provide a venue for libertarian leaning philosophers to get their work published in volumes that non-libertarians will read.) I don’t think conflicts with what you say very much, but I do think that “dilution” isn’t the right way to think about what happens when the money is given to others than the ideologically pure.

With GMU Law, to my mind the best comparison is perhaps with Notre Dame university or something similar. By limiting diversity within the school, each has been able to use the resulting diversity between institutions to attract scholars and students that they otherwise would not have attracted. This usually doesn’t allow you to get the very best people- they will still go to the very best schools, if they can. And, it cuts you off from a lot of options and puts a cap on how far one can rise. But, surely some people who might have taught at, say, Iowa or Illinois or Fordham might take a job instead at GMU or Notre Dame because they want to be in the particular culture. This isn’t completely incompatible with the Money Ball explanation, but it’s independent of it and quite important, I think. (In some cases, Notre Dame, BYU, and, perhaps a bit less for GMU, it’s also important for attracting students who otherwise would not go to the school given the other characteristics of the school.)

]]> By: Henry http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274097 Henry Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:09:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274097 This is a very good and interesting point. I _think_ that the rightward shift was in large part the result of ideational change, but obviously the causality is nearly impossible to disentangle in any fully convincing way. This is a very good and interesting point. I think that the rightward shift was in large part the result of ideational change, but obviously the causality is nearly impossible to disentangle in any fully convincing way.

]]> By: salacious http://crookedtimber.org/2009/04/30/fabians-and-gramscians-in-law-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-274094 salacious Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:57:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=10931#comment-274094 "If you win the technocrats (and law and economics arguably has won the technocrats), then you very nearly have won the entire game." I wonder about the causality here. Did technocrats move rightward because they adopted law and economics, or did law and economics simply offer a convenient grammar for technocrats to articulate a rightward shift which originated elsewhere? This is the issue that reverberates throughout Teles' book: where did Americas rightward shift come from? Did the institution building of the legal right push the legal system rightward, or was their success predicated on a preexisting political realignment. The obvious answer is probably "a bit of both," but it would be interesting to break the causality down a bit further. “If you win the technocrats (and law and economics arguably has won the technocrats), then you very nearly have won the entire game.”

I wonder about the causality here. Did technocrats move rightward because they adopted law and economics, or did law and economics simply offer a convenient grammar for technocrats to articulate a rightward shift which originated elsewhere? This is the issue that reverberates throughout Teles’ book: where did Americas rightward shift come from? Did the institution building of the legal right push the legal system rightward, or was their success predicated on a preexisting political realignment. The obvious answer is probably “a bit of both,” but it would be interesting to break the causality down a bit further.

]]>