I blog, therefore I am. What if I blog about blogging? What kind of impact does blogging have? Blogging is a flexible creative format that can present economic ideas at a fairly high level of analysis but without the formal process and format of a refereed journal article. Moreover, blogs allow for a fairly quick feedback as well as interaction with the readers.
Mckenzie and Osler in an August 2011 World Bank Working Paper (thanks to Kris Inwood for making me aware of the report) titled "The Impact of Economics Blogs" attempt to answer some questions regarding the impact of economics blogs using quantitative evidence. First, does blogging improve research dissemination of a blogger's working papers or refereed publications? Second, does blogging raise public profile for the blogger? Third, does economic blogging transform readers in terms of ideas or their knowledge level. The authors download data from RePEc and combine it with some survey data to answer these questions. They systematically searched the blogs of the 50 most read finance and economics blogs for references to papers on RePEc. They estimate a regression in which the number of abstract views is regressed on a set of lagged dummy variables which take on a value of 1 if the paper is blogged about in time t - there are monthly lags.
Their results are interesting. They find that links to scholarly articles (including working papers as I have done above) in a blog leads to a significant increase in their probability of being downloaded. The impact is larger the more popular is the blog. As well, blogging appears to enhance the profile of the bloggers in terms of recognition. They use a probit analysis to see if there is a higher probability of being on the "favorite economist list" (constructed by Davis et.al, Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126-46) if you are an economics blogger and they estimate that there is a 40 percentage point greater likelihood. However, using an experimental approach they also show that the short run effect on attitudes and knowledge are relatively weak - thus I suppose one may be blogging to the converted.
Do blogs make a difference? The authors conclude that blogging and economic blogs in particular "are doing more than providing a new source of procrastination for writers and readers." They seem to have an important effect on research dissemination in particular as well as some recognition and reputational effects. I would have to say that the latter of course is more dependent on just how many people visit the blog - a form of dissemination of its own.
So if blogging has such positive benefits, why don't more economists blog? The authors quote Tyler Cowen and argue that its simply a different set of skills and not everyone is good at them. They also suggest that there are positive externalities to blogging and there may be an undersupply of good economics blogs. I suppose it would be interesting to research the number of economics blogs by the home location of the bloggers to see if some countries or regions around the world are under or over represented. It could be that undersupply may be relative to certain locations. Their paper is definitely worth a read and by linking to it to my entry in this blog I am of course conveying on them a positive externality and widening research dissemination. By blogging, I suppose I am also increasing my own recognition and providing a benefit to myself.
As economists, we invariably like to reduce analysis of why we do things to self-interest or benefits and costs. In the end, I suppose the people who blog are people who like doing it. It may indeed have research or reputational externalities that are of benefit to the blogger or to others but "liking what we do" is of the course main reason many of us are academics. We have a compulsive need to profess and spread information and we exist when we do so and do not when we are silent.
find that links to scholarly articles (including working papers as I have done above) in a blog leads to a significant increase in their probability of being downloaded. The impact is larger the more popular is the blog. As well, blogging appears to enhance the profile of the bloggers in terms of recognition. They use a probit analysis to see if there is a higher probability of being on the "favorite economist list" (constructed by Davis et.al, Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126-46) if you are an economics blogger and they estimate that there is a 40 percentage point greater likelihood. However, using an experimental approach they also show that the short run effect on attitudes and knowledge are relatively weak - thus I suppose one may be blogging to the converted.
ENdogeneity Alert!!! Some big names blog and it improve their popularity yes but some are popular so they blog...
Posted by: john | September 19, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Blogging does to economists what movies did for actors and recording for singers.
It increases the audiences of the best ones while crowding out the worst who lived at the margins.
Whatever you think of what is on TV, you should have seen the shows at the theatres in Norwich and York in 1973...
Posted by: Jacques René Giguère | September 19, 2011 at 02:35 PM
'It increases the audiences of the best ones while crowding out the worst who lived at the margins.'
this aint true. At least if you measure best one as publication success..
It is full of economist with little publications in good journals who are very successfull blogger. I think Tyler cowen is right, it is a different set of skills.
Posted by: Patty | September 19, 2011 at 03:03 PM
Peer refereed journals are a white-tie ball; blogging is the grind down at the student pub.
Posted by: Determinant | September 19, 2011 at 04:15 PM
"Blogging does to economists what movies did for actors and recording for singers.
It increases the audiences of the best ones while crowding out the worst who lived at the margins."
Or perhaps it's doing for serious academic economists what youtube did for actors and singers - replacing them with laughing babies and cute cats. (Though I like to think of WCI as being more like youtube stars Picnicface: truly brilliant work that will eventually get mainstream recognition).
Posted by: Frances Woolley | September 19, 2011 at 04:56 PM
When I started, I didn't really think of it as a way to attract attention to increase my audience (honest!). I just felt that *someone* had to do *something* to raise the level of debate about economics in Canada and if no-one else was going to do it, it may as well be me.
It was actually more fun when readership was small; I could vent my spleen with intemperate rants without worrying about consequences.
Someone - I think it was Felix Salmon - once remarked that there's a bit of a tension there. When you think no-one's reading, you can be completely honest. Readers appreciate the honesty, so you build an audience. But then it becomes hard to forget that there are lots of people reading, so you find yourself self-censoring.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon | September 19, 2011 at 05:58 PM
About Tyler Cowens comment that blogging is different from research.
Has anyone read Gary Becker´s blog and research?
QED
Posted by: nemi | September 19, 2011 at 06:08 PM
"it is a different set of skills"
I agree. But isn't that also true of teaching (on the one hand) and doing economic research (on the other)? I know that teaching reinforces understanding of the subject matter and exposes the teacher to questions or objections s/he hadn't thought of, but there's also a social aspect to it, a showman aspect, and the crucial management of expectations. I see no reason to believe that these two flavors should always taste great together.
Posted by: Will | September 19, 2011 at 08:09 PM