IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities


  • Frederic S. Lee


In previous research on the impact of the Research Assessment Exercise on heterodox economics and heterodox economists in the UK, the author concluded that reliance on Diamond List journals to rank departments would drive economic departments to discriminate positively in terms of their hiring, promotion and research strategies in favour of mainstream economists and their research, in order to maintain or improve their ranking. As a consequence, the author predicted there would be no or only a token presence of heterodox economists in an increasing number of departments. Whether the conclusions still hold and the predictions materialise is the subject of the paper. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:31:y:2007:i:2:p:309-325

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida & Rafael Galvão de Almeida & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2017. "Academic rankings and pluralism : the case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 569, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    2. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CESifo Working Paper Series 2797, CESifo Group Munich.
    3. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    4. Marcella Corsi & Carlo D'Ippoliti & Federico Lucidi, 2011. "On the Evaluation of Economic Research: The Case of Italy," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 369-402.
    5. Bruno S. Frey & Katja Rost, 2010. "Do rankings reflect research quality?," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 13, pages 1-38, May.
    6. Andrea Cammelli, 2012. "Consolidamento ed eterogeneità nelle esperienze di studio dei laureati italiani," Working Papers 49, AlmaLaurea Inter-University Consortium.
    7. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    8. Jakob Kapeller & Matthias Aistleitner & Stefan Steinerberger, 2017. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond: Assessing the Peculiarities of Economics from Two Scientometric Perspectives," ICAE Working Papers 60, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    9. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    10. repec:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1218-y is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Frederic S. Lee & Xuan Pham & Gyun Gu, 2013. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the narrowing of UK economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 693-717.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Musselin, Christine, 2013. "How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1165-1173.
    14. Freeman, Alan, 2008. "Submission from the Association for Heterodox Economics to the International Benchmarking Review on Research Assessment," MPRA Paper 52836, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Dec 2008.
    15. Frederic S. Lee & Therese C. Grijalva & Clifford Nowell, 2010. "Ranking Economics Departments in a Contested Discipline," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1345-1375, November.
    16. Richard van den Berg, 2012. "Richard Cantillon's Early Monetary Views?," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-3, July.
    17. Whitley, Richard, 2016. "Varieties of scientific knowledge and their contributions to dealing with policy problems: A response to Richard Nelson’s “The sciences are different and the differences matter”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1702-1707.
    18. Adriano Codato & Marco Cavalieri & Renato Perissinotto & Eric Gil Dantas, 2016. "Economic mainstream and power: a profile analysis of Central Bank directors during PSDB and PT governments in Brazil [Economic mainstream and power: a profile analysis of Central Bank directors during," Nova Economia, Economics Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Brazil), vol. 26(3), pages 687-720, September.
    19. Arne HEISE, 2016. "‘Why has economics turned out this way?’ A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 81-101, November.
    20. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    21. Dürmeier, Thomas, 2012. "Wissenschaftlicher Pluralismus als Entdeckungsverfahren und das Monopol der Modellökonomik," Discussion Papers 30, University of Hamburg, Centre for Economic and Sociological Studies (CESS/ZÖSS).
    22. repec:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2585-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. repec:psl:moneta:2017:44 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    25. Freeman, Alan, 2011. "Association for Heterodox Economics Submission to UK Science and Technology Parliamentary Select Committee on peer review," MPRA Paper 64702, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Mar 2011.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:31:y:2007:i:2:p:309-325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.