Saturday, October 30, 2010
1920-21 Depression Article is on Online First at the Review of Austrian Economics!
You can find it here. It's gated, but if you subscribe you can read it. I'm not sure how long it takes articles to migrate from "Online First" to the journal itself. Yay! Working with the Review of Austrian Economics has been a very good experience - I'm grateful to Steve Horwitz for encouraging me to submit here.
Congratulations Daniel.
ReplyDeleteWell done!
ReplyDeleteCongrats. I will have to read it.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations, Daniel!!
ReplyDeleteNow, onto the Journal of Keynesian Economics i.e. all the other journals.
Seriously, great job. You have an absolutely fabulous mind.
I want to read it, but I can't!
ReplyDeleteA question, since I don't have any experience with the peer review process of any academic journal. You mentioned that Robert Murphy was on the panel. To what extent do the reviewers comment on the actual content? To what extent do they try to correct you? Or, do you they avoid corrections?
ReplyDeleteI haven't read it all, yet, but this caught my eye,
"As Woods (2009) points out, President Harding agreed with the Federal Reserve on
the need for “intelligent and courageous deflation” (Harding 1920). However, the
Harding administration’s role in the facilitation of price deflation was marginal at
best... The emphasis that Powell (2009) and Woods (2009) place on Harding’s
role in liquidating malinvestments with a contractionary fiscal policy is therefore
consistent with Harding’s personal outlook on economic policy, but it is historically
inaccurate."
This is not necessarily wrong. I don't know what Woods and Powell write; I haven't read their articles in a while. But, if they claimed this, this runs contrary to Austrian theory, and any serious Austrian scholar would be severely critical of purposeful government-caused deflation (this goes for arbitrary changes in factors which influence the loan market's rate of interest).
Thank you everyone!
ReplyDeleteJonathan - First, I think that was really weird the Murphy was among the reviewers. I would guess that's not common at all and that they don't usually assign reviewers that are directly critiqued in an article. It's also obviously unusual for reviewers to identify themselves, but it was probably appropriate for Murphy to do so, given the circumstances. He provided a lot of detail and attempt at corrections. I usually tried to incorporate that as "some may say this, but..." - because ultimately he was just repeating things he said in the original article that weren't all that convincing in the first place. But yes, for peer review I think you can expect lots of thoughts and comments. I've heard from other people you don't have to relent on all of those comments, but you have to know what the important ones are and what aren't important when you decide what to change.
One of the things my reviewers suggested that I do was not lump all three of the guys I was criticizing together - that was good advice and I went back and was more careful with what I attributed where. It's been a couple months now since I've read their articles, but if I only cite Woods on the deflation piece, he's the only one that made the point...
ReplyDelete... and I, for one, have never accused Tom Woods of being on the ball with Austrian theory or any other economics theory for that matter.
Congrats, Daniel!)
ReplyDeleteIs there any way I can read the article, if I don't have access to SpringerLink?
Think I've said it before, but nice work! Congrats, dude.
ReplyDelete