UK Universities' Research Assessment Drives Cambridge Economics Towards Mainstream Hiring

Cambridge University's Economics Department has been actively seeking to hire more mainstream economists since the 2010s, reflecting a broader trend influenced by national research assessment frameworks. This shift marks a continuation of ideological battles within the institution, known for its historically heterodox economic traditions. Analyst Jon Hartley highlighted this development on social media, stating, "The heterodox state of Cambridge econ (and some of the direct intellectual descendants of Keynes in the same department) is interesting though I think there have since (at least the 2010s) been attempts to hire more mainstream economists."

Historically, Cambridge was a bastion of heterodox economic thought, famously associated with John Maynard Keynes and the "Cambridge School," which challenged neoclassical orthodoxy. However, a significant turning point occurred in the 1970s when neoclassical approaches gained dominance, leading to what some describe as a "purging" of heterodox lineages. This period saw the launch of the Cambridge Journal of Economics in 1977 by heterodox scholars seeking an independent forum.

The current emphasis on mainstream hiring is largely attributed to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), the UK's system for assessing the quality of research in higher education institutions. The REF, and its predecessor the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), significantly influence university funding and academic appointments. Critics argue that these frameworks, by prioritizing publications in highly-ranked, predominantly mainstream journals, inadvertently marginalize heterodox research and scholars.

Academic sources indicate that "almost all appointments in economics departments in leading UK-research institutions, explicitly or implicitly, seek mainstream economists." This institutional pressure creates a challenging environment for heterodox economists, who often find their work undervalued in these assessment metrics. The impact extends to hiring committees, which, in some cases, reportedly refuse to interview heterodox candidates, further cementing the mainstream dominance.

The shift at Cambridge is not isolated, mirroring similar developments in other institutions where economics departments have undergone transformations, sometimes involving the marginalization or removal of heterodox elements. This trend raises questions about the long-term diversity of economic thought within academia and its potential impact on policy development and understanding complex economic realities.