Academia

Theoretically, we make use of a framework that combines Andrew Baker’s work on social purpose with a novel conception of professional legitimacy, which we divide into internal legitimacy and external legitimacy. Especially when they articulate a strong sense of social purpose and are open to co-constitution, such forms of knowledge can have widespread popular appeal while being vehemently rejected by the economics profession. This means that policymakers must examine not just the potential of alternative expertise per se but also weigh the appeal of the two forms of legitimacy against one another. As a result, this framing can help us understand the complex and sometimes non-linear trade-offs associated with upstart forms of expertise.

Yet, this framing also leaves open crucial questions, that should be addressed by future research on the rise of indie economics. Indeed, as a broader field of ‘lay experts’ emerges, potentially challenging and undermining the more centralised form of knowledge production that has been dominant over the course of the long twentieth century, we will need to grapple with new questions of quality control. Science has always had to contend with tensions between scientific rigour and creativity and has developed mechanisms such as peer review to deal with it. But the changes we now face are altering the nature of this trade-off: co-constitution and the enrolment of lay actors can open new intellectual frontiers and democratise science, but they can also open the floodgates for manipulation, pseudoscience, and misinformation of various forms. Future research should explore the mechanisms of quality control (or lack thereof) that are evolving to navigate this new reality.

To return to Daniela Gabor’s question from the introduction, the rise of MMT shows in no uncertain terms we are in a political climate in which trust in mainstream economic knowledge is desperately frayed and – given this lack of trust – anti-establishment credentials become a crucial source of appeal. The rise of alternative forms of economic expertise is menacing to mainstream macro not just to the extent that it competes with it for finite attention, but also in that it is a symptom of the deeper malaise of the discipline and its failure to prove itself fit for social purpose in the face of interlinking crises.

Entirely run by students — Iyer and Shahriari-Parsa, like Eghbariah, attend Harvard Law School — Harvard Law Review is a well-known launch pad for estimable legal and political careers. Barack Obama was the journal president during his time at the law school, and graduates regularly go on to clerkships with Supreme Court justices and jobs at top-tier law firms. With careers potentially on the line, the Harvard Law Review’s decision on Eghbariah’s essay came amid a crackdown in academia, in Ivy League schools and elsewhere, against pro-Palestinian speech following the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent onslaught against the Gaza Strip.

“I can only speculate about the reasons of individual editors,” said Ryan Doerfler, a law professor at Harvard who attended a meeting with Law Review staff about the Palestine article. “What I can observe, though, is that the vote took place amidst a climate of suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy.”