Author: Richard Tol

The best university in all the land

The new QS rankings are out: TCD tops the Irish poll at 65, followed by UCD at 134, UCC at 181, and NUIG at 298. Ireland’s other universities are not ranked in the top 300.

The Examiner (and RTE radio) made much of the fact that UCC got 5 stars. QS now has two rankings. The new one requires more data from the universities. To date, only U Limerick (4 stars) and UCC have provided that information. UCC is thus best of two.

There are disciplinary rankings too. In economics, TCD and UCD are both 51-100. Other universities do not make it into the top 200.

The Independent and Times note that Ireland’s universities have been sliding down the QS rankings. If I’m not mistaken, QS ranks can be compared over time whereas THE ranks cannot. The reasons offered by the various people interviewed are, of course, just speculation. The QS data do not allow for an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind the success, and Ireland’s universities are not particularly good in keeping records.

20% of the QS ranking is citations per faculty. QS does not define this, but the practicable way is to allocate papers to the university at which the research was done (rather than where the researcher is now). Faculty numbers have fallen, so Ireland’s position should have improved on this score, partly offsetting the decline in the faculty-student ratio (another 20%). 50% of the QS ranking is based on “reputation”, and that’s a stock variable that should survive a downturn if properly measured. However, I would think that the drop in ranking is at least partly explained by the brand Ireland turning sour in general.

UPDATE: Brian Lucey offers further thoughts and data.

UPDATE2: Kevin Denny is not impressed.

Ireland’s economists in the world

I’ve taught myself the black art of web-scraping.

There are many rankings of economists and economics departments. IDEAS/RePEc uses a reasonable method and is kept up to date. It also provides rankings by and of countries. Ireland is now ranked 33rd in the world. Ireland’s economists are thus about as good as its soccer players (ranked 31st).

It wasn’t always thus. IDEAS/RePEc has published country rankings since 2005. Ireland’s position has steadily improved over time, as can be seen from this graph. As a number of economists are planning to emigrate, that trend may reverse.

Celebrity economists (take two)

Garret FitzGerald coined the term celebrity economist. I defined “celebrity” as the ratio of media exposure to peer recognition (here and here), which is really a measure of “excess celebrity”. We are still working on the academic paper to support this. One of the minor findings is that one of my worst PhD alumni returned to his home country to become a media sensation and a cherished policy analyst.

Experts play an important role when democracies make difficult decisions. They help to select the policy options that are considered, and help to shape the public opinion about the desirability of these options. The Irish economy would always have gone through a rough period, but bad advice has made things worse than they could have been.

It is therefore important to recognize who has expertise and who has not. FitzGerald’s contended, rightly, that some of the people whose advice was followed were, in fact, not particularly competent in the area concerned.

For the public at large, it is hard to tell a charlatan from an expert. Indeed, Twitters reveals that the hesitant talk of one of Ireland’s top economists is interpreted by many as a sign of ignorance (whereas in fact he thinks before he says something); while the fluent speech of one of the more frequent commentators is typically seen as a sign of competence (whereas in fact his self-confidence is matched only by his ignorance). Journalists should know better, but rarely take the time to find a real expert — and entertainment value is important too.

And it’s not just expertise that matters, it’s appropriate expertise. I may be the world’s 163rd best economist, but I can only claim expertise in matters energy, environment and climate and certainly not on all details in each sub-field — and I therefore refuse media appearances on banking, pensions, growth, art, termites, cardiovascular disorders, volcanoes, … (examples of actual interview requests) The typical listener to the radio or watcher of the TV assumes that because someone is a professor and speaking on the topic, (s)he must be an expert. If only.

While most economists in Ireland show exemplary behavior in their dealings with public and policy makers, there are a few who seem to think that the quantity of media appearances is more important than the quality. They should reconsider.

Waste policy

My op-ed in yesterday’s Sunday Times (behind pay wall) expands on last week’s post. Here’s my version of the text:

The proposed reform of waste collection is a step in the right direction. Incineration is needed to meet our EU obligations. A few waste companies will lose money, but other companies and households will be better off.

The Department of the Environment is now moving to change the regulation of waste collection from “competition in the market” to “competition for the market”. Competition in the market does little for lower fees as few households shop around for the cheapest waste collector. Economies of density is another other reason to welcome this move. In my street, we have three bins (black, green, brown) and four companies collecting bins. Every fourth Monday, no less than 12 waste trucks drive up our road to the delight of the children and the annoyance of drivers. Three trucks (one company) could do the same work for a fraction of the cost, as they would spend less time driving and more time collecting waste.

That company would have a local monopoly. Monopolies charge more than competitive companies, but there would be cost savings for households too. Monopoly power is easily checked in this case. Waste collection concessions should be tendered, and granted to the company that guarantees the lowest fees for households. Such concessions should be renewed regularly, say every two years, to keep up competitive pressure.

The proposed change in regulation is a change for the good, therefore. It follows the recommendations in a number of reports, including the International Review of Waste Management Policy, commissioned by the previous Minister, and the Gorecki report of the ESRI.

A level-headed change in waste management is welcome in itself. The previous Minister openly campaigned against government waste policy, but did not change it. This was a source of much confusion and agitation. Investment and renewal in the waste sector ground to a halt. It can now start again.

The most urgent problem is that the European Union has put a cap on the amount of waste that can be landfilled. That cap has been in force for over a year now, but the government has yet to formulate a coherent plan on how to meet the target.

Incineration will be part of the solution. The proposed change in the rules for waste collection has been interpreted as a move to favour incineration. That is nonsense. The markets for waste collection and waste disposal are separate. Some people seem to think that waste collection and disposal must be done by the same company, but there is neither a legal nor an economic reason for this.

A number of Irish waste collectors have diversified into waste disposal, focusing on methods that curried political favour before the last election. Returns in waste collection are not great. Waste disposal looked more lucrative with the EU cap on landfill. That changed with the prospect of a large incinerator in Poolbeg. Incineration is, after landfill, the cheapest way to (legally) dispose of waste. Irish waste disposal companies have complained loudly about incineration – because they know they cannot compete. Waste collectors would be fools not to send their waste for incineration.

The Poolbeg incinerator is not without its faults. There would be few environmental or health concerns if it is properly run, but it is not sure that the Environmental Protection Agency has sharp enough teeth to stand up to a large, multinational company. The incinerator is financed through a mechanism that is, as far as I know, unique to Ireland. If the incinerator turns a profit, the spoils go to the shareholders. If it turns a loss, the taxpayer makes good the difference. The Poolbeg incinerator shares this peculiar model of privatizing gains and socializing losses with, among others, toll roads, renewable energy, and of course banks.

This does mean that the incinerator can charge lower fees if it needs to increase its market share. The Minister decided not to impose a levy on incineration. As there are small external costs from incineration, this is an implicit subsidy. The incinerator will therefore be a fierce competitor in the waste disposal market. Irish waste companies are right to be worried.

At the same time, the reform of waste collection is good news for them. Profit margins should be better if local monopolies are sold through a competitive tendering process.

The tender process should be well organized. That would be a task for the county councils. A number of county councils still run their own waste collection business. It is hard to see that tenders of private companies would get a fair hearing. The tendering should therefore be outsourced to an independent body or the public waste collection businesses should be privatized. The Commission for Utilities Regulation should oversee the tendering.

[UPDATE: See new CEPR paper; h/t Constantin Gurdgiev]

But if the new regulations are properly implemented, households and small companies should benefit. The government is working to reduce the costs of waste collection and waste disposal. Many things can still go wrong, but there is movement in the right direction.

Results of the smart meter trial

There’s a peculiar piece in today’s Independent. The reports of the CER’s 18 month smart meter trial were published in May.

The trial found statistically and economically significant changes in consumer behaviour due to the introduction of time-of-day pricing, with cost savings for both producers and consumers that together more than offset the costs of metering (unless the wrong communication network is chosen).

The trial also found that in-house displays further modify electricity use, but insufficiently so to justify the additional cost.

Real-time pricing was not trialed, nor were smart devices, micro-generation, electric vehicles, and micro-storage.