Simon Corden’s Post

This paper shows several ways to bridge the science-policy route by using Real Capital, rather than financial capital, as a measure of societal status and performance. It contains ways to make your publications, reports and presentations more salient and actionable by policy makers and hopefully contributes to science being better heard by politics. https://lnkd.in/dUCRcgFg

Excellent essay on the types of research that policymakers, elected officials, and especially administrators need and can use. The research we produce for our colleagues usually doesn't fit the bill. These examples are more about explanation, descriptive inference, and modeling decision systems than in typical in academic outlets. The distinction between policy analysis and decision systems is interesting and implies a stronger role for political science research - particularly public policy and governance scholars. (Economists tend to disproportionately prioritize policy effects.) If you want to do policy relevant research, this is a must read from Jed Kolko. #publicpolicy #governance #policyresearch

Today we're sharing with you tips from Timothy Frye of Columbia University on how to formulate a key research question. Timothy Frye is a lecturer in our ‘Post-Communist Transition’ course, and his scholarly experience is invaluable. Students in the program have already begun writing their term papers under his guidance, and we are sure that his recommendations will be useful to you too. Tell us in the comments how you choose your research question. 1️⃣ Finding a research question Check if your question is important for normative reasons, substantive reasons, or academic debates. Pick some aspects of the problem. Think about the variation that you seek to explain. 2️⃣Two ways to motivate The first one is substantive motivation — finding some empirical variation that you want to explain. For example, you can speculate why the United States experienced Democratic Erosion but Canada did not. The second type is theoretical motivation. You may observe whether a theoretical prediction matches an outcome. For example, the theory says that parliamentary systems make democratic erosion less likely than the presidential system. However, it doesn’t match the observations about the USA and Canada. 3️⃣Thinking about your argument Use arrows to spell out the argument. The work must show cause-and-effect relationships, such as higher energy prices → higher corruption.

Check out the Future Directions article, “The questions being asked: Academic research, the media, and regulators” (summarized below) from the latest issue of the Financial Review by Michelle Lowry. https://lnkd.in/eVsHqfiF This piece calls for academics to align their research agendas with broader audiences, including industry professionals and policymakers, to increase the impact of their work on real-world issues. By comparing academic journal topics with those in industry and regulatory publications, it identifies gaps and suggests areas for future research.   #VU_Business #USFMuma #WileyEconomics

We are thrilled to announce the launch of DSEF, a cutting-edge academic journal dedicated to exploring the critical issues and innovative solutions that shape sustainable development and public policy. As the Senior Editor, I am honored to present the inaugural volume, featuring an editorial that sets the stage for the impactful and essential research we aim to cultivate. In today's rapidly evolving world, the intersection of research and policy has never been more crucial. Our journal is committed to bridging the gap between academic inquiry and practical implementation, providing a forum for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to exchange insights and foster meaningful dialogue. The editorial in this first volume, written together with Stéphane Goutte, underscores the importance of delving into subjects that demand further investigation and are pivotal for informed decision-making. Each issue of DSEF will feature peer-reviewed articles that push the boundaries of current knowledge and provide fresh perspectives on pressing economic and policy challenges. Our goal is to inspire evidence-based policymaking that can lead to tangible improvements in society. We invite researchers, scholars, and practitioners to contribute their work to DSEF. Together, we can create a robust body of research that informs and influences policy for the betterment of our communities and the world. Join us on this exciting journey! https://lnkd.in/dK_66Nzb

https://lnkd.in/esFTEyu3 This interesting Working Paper by Matilde Bombardini, Francesco Trebbi and Miao Ben Zhang discusses recent methodological innovations in the area of cost and benefit assessment of government regulation, in both a prospective and retrospective sense. Much of the extant progress is presented on the front of private costs of compliance. It suggests that private benefits, social costs, and social benefits remain much less systematically organised and more arduous to quantitatively assess. They suggest that the use of some of the tools presented in this paper could contribute to a smarter approach to designing regulation and tracking net benefits over time.

I'm thrilled to announce the publication of my latest research, co-authored with Blain Pearson, Ph.D., CFP®, AFC®, and Donald Lacombe, titled: "Likert Scale Variables in Personal Finance Research: The Neutral Category Problem" in Econometrics 📊. 🔍 What's it about? In personal finance research, Likert scales are widely used, but they often include a “neutral” category (e.g., “Neither Agree nor Disagree”), which can introduce bias in econometric analyses. Our study addresses this often-overlooked issue by demonstrating a novel methodology that corrects this bias using hierarchical models. 📈 Why is it important? By refining the way we model Likert-type data, especially the "neutral" responses, our approach enhances the accuracy of findings in personal finance research. This can lead to more reliable insights for both researchers and practitioners working on financial literacy, planning, and behavior. 🙏 It was a pleasure collaborating with Blain Pearson, Ph.D., CFP®, AFC®, and Donald Lacombe on this paper. Your insights and expertise truly enriched the work, and I'm grateful for the teamwork and support throughout this journey. 💡 If you're interested in the intersection of econometrics, finance, and survey methodology, I would love to hear your thoughts on this work! You can read the full paper here: https://lnkd.in/gSRXZthk. #PersoanlFinance #FinancialPlanning #Econometrics #PFP #CHHS #TTU

Sign up to email alerts from OUP Academic to receive emails about advance articles and new issues of Review of Finance. The Review of Finance (RF) is a peer-reviewed journal that competes for the best articles in the field of finance. The journal’s editorial policy is guided by two criteria: quality and innovation. The Review of Finance is the Journal of the European Finance Association. The aim of the Review of Finance is to publish the very best research in financial economics, irrespective of research methodology, author identity, geography, or whether the findings support existing research or are seen as controversial. In particular, the editors are willing to take risks on papers that may not typically be published by good journals. At the same time, the journal aims to be a resource for the world community of finance researchers, open to exciting and novel contributions from authors around the globe. The board is committed to a fast, electronically managed, editorial process. https://lnkd.in/eyKzBnDJ

And this article is based on a recent working paper of ours, which can be found here: https://lnkd.in/d3QYP5tY

New working paper out!— this one has been in the making for a while (with Luigi Zingales, Tommaso Valletti, John Barrios, Shashank Singh and Joshua Levy). In “The Conflict-of-Interest Discount in the Marketplace of Idea,” we study how different forms of conflicts of interest—such as money, career, data access, reputation, and ideology—impact trust in economic articles and science more broadly. We use randomized vignettes to elicit how selected economists (from the NBER and CEPR), other academic economists and a general sample of the US population (through a YouGov poll) increase their trust in or discount the results of different academic articles once they are exposed to disclosures that reveal different forms of conflict of interest impacting that given paper. Our results show that conflicts of interest—such as receiving money for work as an expert witness or being granted restricted access to databases by companies interested in the results of a study—have a significant negative impact on the trustworthiness of the academic work by the same scholars. By some measures, a conflicted paper is worth a third or even a quarter of a paper by non-conflicted scholars. However, there is a lot of variation: using public access data increases trust in papers, while ideology and even reputational concerns impact trustworthiness less significantly. We have many more results broken down by expertise, ideology, career affiliation, etc. The overall message, though, is consistent: conflicts of interest negatively impact trust in academia. Our results are timely. Trust in science has been declining, and authorities have been increasingly criticizing the breakdown between academic independence and pure advocacy (as per recent speeches/comments by Jonathan Kanter and Andreas Mundt ). As our paper highlights, one of the main problems is the overall negative externality generated by conflicts of interest: researchers internalize the benefits (money, data), but no one internalizes the costs—e.g. the articles never written because they antagonize companies that control the necessary databases. The overall distrust in the current disclosure system doesn’t help either: when we asked economists whether they adequately disclose their conflicts, 95% said “yes” or “mostly”. When we asked whether their peers had done so, most said they did not trust their disclosures. This negative externality is mainly born by the vast majority of scholars performing serious, independent work (and, particularly young scholars).  We hope our results will help advance this vital conversation by providing a technical baseline for discussions on how external influences can impact academic research. Please take a look, share it around, and send us comments! This is very much a work in progress. https://lnkd.in/eGb29DyH