Fact Check: Bias at the CEA?

This was written by Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary.

In a recent Financial Post opinion piece by Phillip Cross (entitled “Discounting Business Knowledge” HERE), he finds the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Economics Association guilty of bias. Allow me to quote him at length:

Analysing the 64-page CEA agenda shows a not very surprising bias to where the CEA thinks knowledge about economics resides in our society. Of the 600 odd papers being presented, 90 per cent are from university professors, while two-thirds of the remainder come from government organizations (mostly central banks). Only 3 per cent of papers come from outside university and the public sector…

From these observations he concludes that “according to the CEA, there is essentially no knowledge in the business sector worth tapping.” Unfortunately for Mr. Cross, many of these observations are either misleading or sometimes simply false. The actual data tell a very different story. (Special thanks to Paula Emery and especially Werner Antweiler for providing the relevant statistics.)

Mr. Cross is correct that the bulk of presentations at the CEA are by individuals affiliated with Universities, but he forgets that graduate students make up a substantial share of those. Indeed, of the 1135 registered participants, over one quarter of CEA participants are graduate students. Rather than the 90 per cent figure cited by Mr. Cross, Professors of all ranks (full, associate, assistant, retired, visiting, emeritus, etc.) are less than half of the total. Of course, many participants do not report their academic rank in this way, which is why the “other” category is nearly one quarter of the total, so these data are only broadly informative.

What about our supposed focus on irrelevant topics? He supposes “practical people searching for solutions to real problems” are not likely to be found at the CEA. On the contrary, a wide variety of important fields of research are represented at the CEA. This is readily confirmed by the wide variety of primary fields listed by authors of presented papers (keeping in mind that many of us have expertise in many areas, and these do not necessarily reflect the actual paper topics presented). The following table lists the top 20 primary fields out of all submissions, in descending order.

 

This data supports what Chris Ragan recently pointed out in a Globe and Mail piece, the CEA features “discussions of almost any economic issue you could imagine”. (Read the full article HERE, though it is behind a pay wall.)

But let’s return to the central issue of Mr. Cross’s piece: the lack of presentations by business sector economists. Is this evidence of bias on the part of the CEA or some reflection of where “we” think economic knowledge in society resides? Perhaps instead it is only that few economists from the business sector apply to participate in the first place. Below, I plot the share of applications received by the CEA this year by affiliation. Again, the facts do not support Mr. Cross’ interpretation.

The business community accounts for less than 1% of applications. Specifically, only 9 applications from economists in the business community were received. Of those, only one (!) was rejected. Hardly evidence of a cabal of CEA gatekeepers preventing economists in the business community from participating. Overall, the decision rates across affiliation categories are fairly similar, at roughly 70% of applications accepted.

 

It is incorrect to claim that the CEA somehow neglects the insights of economists in the business community. It turns out they simply do not apply. When they do, their acceptance rate is comparable to all other types of economists. If the lack of business economist participation is concerning to you, the solution is clear: organize a CEA session, get them to apply. (In another response to the Phillip Cross piece, Stephen Tapp makes this same broad point, among others. Read it HERE.)

What might explain the lack of interest in applying to the CEAs? Perhaps it has something to do with business economists having their own, separate, professional association – The Canadian Association of Business Economists – who have their own events.

Most bewildering of all of Mr. Cross’s claims is the attack on some of the most accomplished economists among us. The Canada Research Chairs, he notes, do not dominate the CEA State-of-the-Art Lectures. From this, we must conclude (of course) that they actually do not possess state of the art knowledge and therefore the entire CRC program provides little return on investment. Then again, even a quick glance of the CVs of any of Canada’s CRC chairs reveals a steady flow of publications in the world’s best economics journals, many highly insightful policy pieces, direct consulting with governments, and a regular schedule of travel to disseminate their accumulated knowledge all over the world.

But, since five of the six State-of-the-Art lectures were by U.S. economists, we apparently have a problem. It’s as though allowing participation by non-Canadian economists is concerning. It turns out that many economists from all over the world actually want to travel to Canada to network, share ideas, collaborate, and learn. Indeed, one-third of all applications to the CEAs are from non-Canadian economists (see below).

And many of those non-Canadian economists that apply are accepted, as revealed in the decision rates by country displayed below.

The gains from trade are very real, and this is as true of ideas as it is of goods and services. We should see such international participation at the CEAs as unambiguously good.

Sadly, many more non-sensical observations abound in Mr. Cross’s piece. For example, separating economics in universities and government from the business sector apparently causes a “lack of appreciation of risk-taking” and a presumption that “government is the locus of growth.” The heated rhetoric in his piece is supported by no evidence beyond a cursory glance at the conference program. Public commentators have a responsibility not to mislead, even in opinion pieces. Claims should be supported by evidence or not made at all.

This was written by Trevor Tombe of the University of Calgary.

 

 

 

Comments

[Kevin Milligan]

I think the greatest risk-takers I know are those who work at Statcan for 30 years, max out their generous public service indexed pension, then retire to think-tank sinecures. The more odes to private-sector acuity I read from risk-takers like that, the more informed I become. In fact, some day I may even try to work in the private sector myself! Nah, who am I kidding. I'd never cut it!

[Kevin Milligan]

You know folks, Mr. Cross is simply trolling us. Getting angry just makes him happy.

Instead, I think we need to laugh. Here is something funny that he wrote. I'm not sure he intended it as humour, but I find it totally LOL funny myself.

http://c2cjournal.ca/2015/03/a-conservative-bureaucrat-is-an-oxymoron-until-hes-not/

I think I would like to encourage Mr. Cross to write a book. He could title it:

"Real life awesome business lessons on risk taking from a 3rd generation bureaucrat who learned all he needs to know about how *hard* it is to be in business during a couple of years doing some consulting gigs on the side while supported by a fully-indexed taxpayer-supported pension."

That would totally be a top-ten seller! I'd buy a few copies for sure!

[Frances Woolley]

Don't hold back, Kevin, keep it coming! ;-)

[ianlee]

It seemed to me that Philip Cross raised legitimate questions in his FP Op-Ed, albeit using colourful language, concerning the near complete absence of economists from the business community at the CEA annual conference.

I suggest this while noting I am a very strong advocate of the need to employ more economists in business schools, due to the empirical and analytical rigour they bring to the study of business strategy and public policy.

Turning to the issue, I thought the excellent numbers provided by Trevor Tombe validated the central thesis articulated by Cross. However, much as I appreciated Trevor's and Stephen Tapp's separate analyses, neither addressed the fundamental issue - why do so few economists from business submit papers to the CEA conference?

Secondarily, is it the role of potential paper givers - outside of academia - to organize panels at academic conferences or is it the role of the academic conference organizers to reach out to non traditional presenters to ensure greater intellectual and philosophical diversity?

Although we in the academy loudly trumpet our commitment to diversity, it seems to me (based on my 27 years as a professor) we interpret it to mean gender, race and ethnicity rather than philosophical diversity.

Lastly, I must respectfully disagree with Kevin - whose simply excellent research I quote regularly, frequently - for the pension income or consulting income or family background (e.g. "third generation public servant" of an analyst is simply not relevant to issues debated. (But for the record, as it has been brought into the debate, I do not consult to anyone or anything anywhere and yes my father also was a public servant and his father was a bricklayer in the interwar years in England - but so what? why is this important to the debate?).

The debate should concern the empirics and logics of the issue - and not the personal financial status or family lineage of the analyst.

[Nick Rowe]

Why are CEA and CABE separate organisations?

[Ian: "Although we in the academy loudly trumpet our commitment to diversity, it seems to me (based on my 27 years as a professor) we interpret it to mean gender, race and ethnicity rather than philosophical diversity. BINGO! "Diversity" doesn't include conservatives.]

[ianlee]

Nick - full disclosure - I am on the Board of Directors of Ottawa Economics Association (OEA) - which is a chapter of CABE. Chris Ragan is our past President 2 presidents ago. However, most of the OEA presidents have been business or govt types e.g. Stephen Poloz, Glen Hodgson (Conf Board), Peter Hall (EDC), Bill Robson (CD Howe) etc.

However, the larger point is that CABE is not a parallel organization to CEA, as CABE and its chapters are not an academic association devoted to scholarly research. CABE and its chapters are (imperfectly) analogous to the various business luncheon clubs in major cities in Canada e.g. Canadian Club.

Re your quote "diversity does not include conservatives", I was not referring to political diversity (not sure you were either). I deliberately used the phrase "intellectual and philosophical diversity" pertaining to views concerning private markets, private for profit corporations etc.

I recall a PRJ published about 5 years ago by a prof at U of T and his research colleague at George Mason U Economics Dept. They developed a survey of faculty in US and Canada that inter alia, asked the respondents to self identify as far right, conservative, centrist, liberal, social democrat or beyond. If I recall accurately, 85% of Cdn faculty self identified as left liberal, social democrat or beyond. My comment at the time was that the remaining 15% were buried so deep in the closet - with the door closed - with the lights off - no one could find them. I called them the "disappeared".

My hypothesis is that there are some great unwritten, not presented, not published papers in economics faculties across Canada that are self-suppressed as the would-be authors understand they would be outliers and offside at the proverbial faculty club. Not due to overt discrimination or what Cross called "bias" but due to the "inter-subjective consensus" (Habermas) that exists amongst the majority of faculty.

The posts above are excellent examples of the inter-subjective consensus that exists - in this instance in economics - but is more pronounced, in my judgment, in other faculties.

[Kevin Milligan]

Hi Ian. I think it is a great suggestion to increase ineraction between CABE and CEA. It is wonderful that you're involved in the local CABE chapter because the CEA meetings are in Ottawa next year. In fact, I will write to the CEA organizer to suggest a spot be saved for a CABE-sponsored session. Maybe even Mr Cross will attend.

As to your point that CABE isn't interested in academic research, doesn't that cut away the substantial point Mr Cross was making?

[ianlee]

Thanks Kevin. Yes, I think it would be great to have CABE and/or OEA sponsor a session at the CEA. Most of the speakers we invite to the OEA are speakers who address some aspect of public policy eg rail transportation policy, competitiveness, federal budget, trade. Thus I think the "fit" perhaps stronger due to our policy focus (because most of the luncheon paying bums are chairs are public servants). But I will raise this at our next OEA Board meeting in 2 weeks time.

(BTW congrats on landing in Ottawa next year. as I tell my friends in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver who mistakenly think they are the center of the universe, the truth must be out. Ottawa is the center of the Cdn universe - we collect and spend almost a third of a trillion dollars a year and we pass the laws that decide if and how the govt can spy on you etc.: My running joke with CBC people is why oh why oh why is the "National" in Toronto - which is just a big regional expensive dangerous city in southern Ontario. The National should be broadcast from the National Capital!

Back to your question. I cannot and do not speak for CABE. However, nonetheless, I do review their web site regularly and I am familiar with the governance of CABE through my involvement with OEA. As I mentioned, CABE was not established as an academic or scholarly entity. Its mission or raison d'etre is very different from CEA.

And I am not trying to suggest a conspiracy. To invoke the late British scientist CP Snow's phrase, "The Two Cultures", ensures there are barriers between the scholarly world and the academic world.

I remain hopeful the CEA will reach out to some of the business economists with a more theoretical bent and encourage them to write and present papers. Certainly, a good number will be too busy - but just as surely some will agree if solicited.

[Kevin Milligan]

Great Ian--all I ask is that you pass any information on to the CABE representatives. Here is the email I just sent to Jean-Yves Duclos, who is listed as President-Elect of the CEA.

--

Bonjour Jean-Yves, je t'écris comme Président-élu du CEA. J'ai aussi fait un 'cc' en haut à Frances Woolley qui est vice-Présidente du CEA.

Il y avait un 'op-ed' du M Philip Cross la semaine passé ou il a écrit des critiques contre le CEA. Il était de l'opinion que le CEA aurait besoin de plus des participants du secteur privé. À mon avis, c'est une bonne idée.

Prof Ian Lee est un délégué du Canadian Association of Business Economists à Ottawa. Les réunions du CEA seront à Ottawa en 2016. Pour cette raison, c'est naturel d'inviter Prof Lee de nous aider avec les rélations entre le CEA et CABE.

Ma question: est-ce que c'est possible d'envoyer à Prof Lee (que est 'cc' en haut) des infos pour organizer une session au CEA 2016? Peut-etre Prof Lee n'est pas disponible pour cette idée mais j'espère que il pouvait rendre les info à la personne à CABE qui pourrait.

Merci beaucoup, Kevin

----------
Kevin Milligan
UBC Economics
604-822-6747

[bank sort of economist]

An academic and a retired bureaucrat explain what business econmistz want. Brilliant. I look forward to Messrs. Cross and Lee explaining what it feels like to menstruate.

I am a "Business economist". I work at a bank economics group and have graduate degree. My employer pays me to add value to the bank, not to publish vanity publications and peddle them at conferences. No disrespect to those who do it, but that is not my job, no more than you get paid to talk to branch managers on how to use economic data to sell mortgages. Don't let a bunch of self loathing conservative academics mislead you.