Reforming the European Doctoral Model: A Two‐Track Future for Economics
Over the past three decades, European economics has steadily imported the American model of doctoral training and evaluation. The so-called “top-five” system, where career advancement hinges on publishing in the American Economic Review, Econometrica, the Journal of Political Economy, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and the Review of Economic Studies, has reshaped the academic landscape across the continent. While this model fits the enormous, highly mobile U.S. academic market, in Europe it has increasingly produced tricky parts, tangled issues, and a series of problematic trade-offs that call for fresh thinking.
This opinion editorial examines the problems with the current system, explains why the unique challenges of Europe demand its own approach, and proposes a two-track model for doctoral training and evaluation. In doing so, we take a closer look at how the prevailing emphasis on elite publications causes unintended consequences, and we outline a path toward a more pluralistic, socially grounded, and inclusive academic system.
The US Top-Five Model: Tricky Challenges and Tangled Issues
The U.S. academic market supports a competitive, large-scale environment where even secondary institutions can thrive despite a narrow focus on a few elite journals. However, replicating this model in Europe has resulted in several problematic twists and turns.
Low Odds and High Opportunity Costs
One of the most nerve-racking issues for European economists is the near-zero probability of achieving publication in one of these top-five journals. Studies indicate that, for example, Swedish economists have published only one article per year in top-tier journals since 2010. This translates into years of painstaking work on a single manuscript that is then repeatedly turned down.
The opportunity cost is enormous. Aspiring economists spend five to six years polishing a paper only for promising projects to be abandoned if they lack “top-five potential.” This competitive race often forces scholars to disregard projects with rich, policy-relevant insights that might not fit the narrow criteria of those elite journals.
Furthermore, this system inadvertently wastes resources: talented academics find themselves entrenched in a long, repetitive, and intimidating cycle, often shifting focus or even leaving academia altogether after many unproductive attempts. The result is a misallocation of limited talent and funding that fails to create value for society at large.
The Narrowing of Research Focus
The emphasis on publishing in a select handful of journals drives economists to design their research projects around what appeals to a specific group of U.S.-based editors. In practice, this means that research is often narrowly framed, with scholars playing it safe by extending existing studies rather than tackling the tangled issues of national or regional importance.
Topics such as labor market institutions, regional development, and welfare reforms, which carry complicated pieces of social and economic importance, are frequently sidelined. This bias is not only a disservice to European societies but also undermines the discipline’s engagement with the pressing, local challenges that governments and communities face.
Collaboration and Credit Issues in a One-Track System
Another challenge concerns co-authorship dynamics. The safest route for a European academic to enter the top-five circle is often to collaborate with a well-known U.S. economist. However, this practice raises tricky questions about individual contribution and intellectual originality. When prestige becomes a proxy for competence, honest work can be overshadowed by networking skills rather than genuine intellectual achievement.
Such practices can discourage independent thinking and reduce the drive to explore innovative ways to address the subtle parts of national and regional issues. Consequently, researchers can find themselves working through a system that is full of problems, where genuine contributions risk being obscured by the political mechanics of academic publishing.
Diversifying European Economics: The Case for a Two-Track Model
Given the challenges that derive from an unquestioned adoption of a U.S.-style top-five model, it is clear that Europe needs to forge its own path. A two-track model represents a promising alternative that values both frontier research and applied, policy-oriented work. Rather than an exclusive focus on elite publications, economics in Europe should facilitate a division of labor that recognizes different types of contributions.
A Track for Frontier Research
The first track should uphold rigorous academic excellence and emphasize international outreach. This route would continue to prepare scholars for the global debates through their theoretical and empirical research. However, by aligning with frontier techniques and ensuring that research maintains a high level of international visibility, the track should also include mentoring and regular exposure to emerging academic trends.
In practice, the frontier research track should include:
- Advanced methodological training that equips scholars to tackle the fine points of theoretical and empirical economics.
- A focus on innovative ideas that can contribute to global conversations and foster international collaboration.
- Opportunities for interdisciplinary work that allow economists to touch upon related fields such as political science, sociology, and statistics.
This track is essential for maintaining the drive for academic excellence and ensuring that Europe contributes important insights to the broader academic community.
A Track for Applied Economics and Policy
The second track is designed for those who wish to apply economic theories to real-world situations. It is aimed at enabling economists to contribute directly to solving the pressing issues that governments, public institutions, and civil society organizations face.
This track should aspire to produce professionals who can work in:
- Government ministries and central banks.
- Research institutes with a policy orientation.
- Public and private sectors where a practical grasp of economics is required.
- Think tanks and organizations engaged in public outreach and civic education.
Emphasizing empirical breadth, interdisciplinary approaches, and communication skills, the applied economics track nods to the need for engaging with the community and ensuring that economic research has direct societal value. This dual focus is not intended to create a hierarchy but rather to respect the different roles economists can play within society.
Institutional Reforms: Steering Through Tangled Issues
Implementing the two-track model will require significant institutional reforms that support diversity in doctoral training and academic development. It begins with acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all approach is unsuitable, particularly in the European context where academic institutions differ vastly in size and specialization.
Diversified Doctoral Programs
Rather than forcing every institution to adhere strictly to the U.S. template, European universities should be encouraged to design doctoral programs that reflect their distinctive strengths and regional expertise. Smaller universities, in particular, can chart unique courses in areas such as transport economics, regional development, or energy policy.
A diversified set of PhD programs might include:
- Specialized training modules focused on topics of local or regional significance.
- A blend of theoretical work and hands-on policy analysis that helps students connect academic research with practical applications.
- Collaborative projects with local government bodies and industries to create a pipeline for solving real-world economic challenges.
This strategy ensures that doctoral training is not off-putting to those who wish to work beyond the ivory towers of academic research. Instead, it actively supports a broader engagement with society by preparing economists to take on multiple roles, from academic research to public service.
Creating Policy-Oriented Research Institutes
In order to bridge the gap between academic theory and public application, Europe should invest in policy-oriented research institutes that are closely tied to universities. Existing models, such as the ones in Uppsala and Stockholm, demonstrate that well-integrated institutes can successfully meld academic rigor with policy relevance.
These institutes can function as hubs for:
- Collaborative research that includes policymakers, government officials, and academic experts.
- Workshops and training sessions aimed at imparting practical research methods to upcoming economists.
- Dissemination of findings to the broader public to ensure that academic insights inform real-world decisions.
By establishing these centers, Europe can create an ecosystem that recognizes the super important role of applied research in influencing public policy and economic reforms.
Rethinking Evaluation Metrics and Incentives
Moving beyond the narrow confines of the top-five model requires a comprehensive overhaul of evaluation practices in academic, policy, and public service roles. Reliance solely on publication records not only narrows research choices but also overlooks significant contributions to societal well-being.
Broader Criteria for Academic Success
European institutions should adopt evaluation criteria that take into account various contributions. This broader approach can include:
- Content Diversity: Recognize policy reports, monographs, specialized journals, and contributions to local or regional research alongside international articles.
- Breadth of Knowledge: Evaluate candidates based on their understanding of domestic institutions, proficiency in interdisciplinary subjects, and ability to teach across a range of fields.
- Public Engagement: Value activities such as op-eds, public lectures, and advisory roles that help translate research for non-specialist audiences.
- Collaborative Projects: Reward meaningful interdisciplinary and cross-sector projects that entail genuine cooperation between academics and professionals outside the academic sphere.
Emphasizing these elements not only aligns closely with the European tradition of economists as both scholars and public intellectuals but also reinforces the discipline’s responsibility to serve society.
Adjusting for Co-Authorship and Transparent Contributions
A further adjustment needed in the evaluation system is the way co-authored work is assessed. Often, scholars may rely on prestigious partnerships rather than contributing independently. To address this, institutions could require detailed disclosures of individual contributions and adjust merit according to the number of co-authors.
This level of transparency discourages free-riding and ensures that credit is allocated fairly. By doing so, it encourages early-career researchers to take risks and pursue projects that reflect their innovative ideas, rather than simply aligning with the safe bets identified by established U.S. academics.
Public Engagement and Bringing Economics to Society
One of the most worrying effects of the current system is the erosion in the public relevance of economics. Increasingly, economists have been sidelined in favor of political scientists and sociologists in shaping public debates. This trend risks rendering the discipline detached from the very societal challenges it ought to address.
Encouraging a Culture of Engagement
Economists must re-embrace their role as public communicators and practical advisors. Measures that can spur this shift include:
- Reinstating teaching demonstrations and outreach requirements as part of academic evaluations.
- Integrating communication training into doctoral programs to help graduates explain their findings in plain language.
- Promoting platforms where economists can share insights with policymakers, business leaders, and the general public.
By turning the focus toward public engagement, Europe can revive its earlier tradition where economic thought contributed directly to policy-making, much as it did during the eras of Keynes and Wicksell. The goal is to restore the discipline’s societal value through greater transparency and accountability in public dialogue.
Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice
Our proposal identifies an essential need—a realignment that sees academic research and practical applications as complementary rather than competitive. The two-track model is designed to encourage scholars to work through both the theoretical and applied realms. This alignment would allow economists to:
- Better understand the small distinctions between academic models and the practical needs of policy formulation.
- Provide nuanced views by integrating academic research with on-the-ground economic realities.
- Build stronger connections with government agencies and non-governmental organizations that require economic expertise.
In fostering a culture where both academic excellence and social relevance co-exist, Europe can ensure that its economists not only contribute to global debates but also steer the country’s policy and reform efforts with clarity and conviction.
Managing Publication Incentives and Reducing Biases
The current publication incentives, which are largely geared toward replicating successful U.S. models, inadvertently steer scholars away from topics with local importance and broader societal implications. In this section, we take a closer look at how reimagining publication practices can have transformative impacts on the field.
Overcoming the Pressure to Conform
Under the current system, researchers are often pressured to construct their projects in alignment with editors’ preferences, resulting in a narrow focus that may not fully address the tangled issues facing European societies. To overcome this, it would be useful to encourage more flexible publication practices. For instance:
- Institutions could set up internal review panels that value diverse outputs, including policy reports and case studies.
- Funding bodies might offer grants that specifically support research directed at solving domestic challenges.
- Professional associations should celebrate work that prioritizes local impact as much as international recognition.
These measures would help shift the cultural mindset from a singular pursuit of elite publications toward a more balanced approach that values real-world impact.
Transparency and Accountability in Co-Authorship
One glaring issue that adds to the confusing bits of the current evaluation system is the oversight in recognizing individual contributions when research is co-authored. A more transparent framework is needed where each author’s contribution is clearly outlined, making it easier for evaluators to appreciate the individual effort behind collaborative projects.
This could be implemented through standardized tables or statements accompanying every paper that breaks down the roles played by each contributor. An example table might look like this:
Contributor | Role | Percentage Contribution |
---|---|---|
Dr. A | Concept and Design | 40% |
Dr. B | Data Collection and Analysis | 35% |
Dr. C | Writing and Editing | 25% |
Introducing such measures can substantially reduce the risk of free-riding and foster a fairer system that rewards genuine insight and creativity.
The Way Forward: A Roadmap for a European Economic Renaissance
The discussion so far illustrates that the existing U.S.-influenced system is not an ideal fit for Europe’s more modest and diverse academic landscape. To reinvigorate the discipline and restore its role as a key contributor to public policy and societal well-being, Europe must design a model that is both balanced and flexible.
Key Steps to Implement the Two-Track Model
Implementing the two-track approach will involve several super important strategic steps. The following roadmap provides an outline of measures that European institutions and policymakers should consider:
- Diversify Doctoral Programs: Encourage universities to develop specialized PhD programs that reflect regional expertise, thereby reducing reliance on a single, rigid approach.
- Create Policy-Oriented Research Centres: Invest in and expand institutes that focus on real-world economic issues, in partnership with government bodies and industry players.
- Revise Evaluation Processes: Expand academic evaluation metrics to acknowledge a broader range of scholarly contributions, from policy reports and monographs to public engagement efforts.
- Enhance Transparency: Introduce measures to delineate individual contributions in co-authored works and adjust merit accordingly to encourage independent research efforts.
- Promote Public Communication: Incorporate training in communication skills as an integral component of doctoral programs to prepare economists for engaging effectively with non-academic audiences.
Benefits of Reshaping European Economics
The benefits of adopting a two-track system extend beyond academic circles. A more diversified approach to training and evaluation can contribute to:
- Improved Policy Formulation: By creating a pool of economists trained in both frontier research and applied policy analysis, governments and public institutions can receive insights that are both cutting-edge and practically relevant.
- Enhanced Academic Freedom: With broader evaluation criteria, scholars will have the freedom to pursue innovative projects that delve into the small distinctions of local, national, or interdisciplinary challenges.
- Revitalized Public Trust: When economists engage actively with the public and communicate their findings in clear, relatable terms, society benefits from a better-informed debate and more responsive policy measures.
- A More Inclusive Profession: By recognizing diverse talents and contributions, the discipline becomes more accessible and less intimidating to those who might have previously been discouraged by the narrow focus on top-tier publications.
This reformed model represents more than just an academic adjustment—it is a comprehensive realignment of how economists are trained, evaluated, and integrated into society. It calls for institutions to figure a path that takes into account both the fine points of advanced research and the subtle parts of practical policy-making.
Conclusion: Charting a Distinct European Course
Europe’s economic community stands at an important crossroads. The continued reliance on a U.S.-style top-five publication model risks narrowing the discipline, wasting scarce talent, and ultimately reducing the impact of economic research on society. By contrast, a two-track approach that balances frontier research with applied economics offers a promising alternative—one that is better suited to the unique scale and diversity of Europe’s academic and policy environments.
A successful transition will require a collective effort by universities, government bodies, research institutes, and funding agencies. It is crucial to create diversified doctoral programs, establish policy-oriented research centres, and revamp evaluation methods to reward a wide array of outputs. Additionally, fostering greater transparency in co-authorship and actively promoting public engagement will help restore the discipline’s relevance in today’s rapidly changing societal landscape.
Ultimately, this is not a question of whether Europe can emulate the American system; rather, it is about whether Europe dares to design a model uniquely its own—one that respects the nerve-racking realities of limited resources and the messy turns of practical policy challenges, while also nurturing a vibrant community of economists equipped to tackle both global debates and local issues.
By embracing a two-track model, Europe can ensure that its economists are not only capable of publishing in elite journals but also fully prepared to advise ministries, evaluate reforms, analyze housing policies, and engage in public discourse. In doing so, the discipline of economics will continue to play a critical role in shaping both academic research and the practical policies that drive societal progress.
As Europe takes these steps forward, it reclaims its role as a leader in rethinking how knowledge is produced and applied. The challenge ahead is clear—with thoughtful institutional reforms and a renewed commitment to both theoretical and applied pursuits, European economics can forge a path that is as dynamic and diverse as the societies it serves.
Originally Post From https://voxeu.org/voxeu/columns/reforming-education-economists-europe-breaking-tyranny-top-five
Read more about this topic at
Training
What is the Rethinking ECON101 Course?