Academic economists don't usually write books. We are rewarded, in professional and self-esteem as well as promotions and pay rises, for our publications of highly mathematical articles in scientific journals. The Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercises, run about every five years by the funding bodies, rate departments in every subject at every UK university. The most important element is research output, judged by the list of publications submitted to the REF. As an example, for the 2021 REF the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) economics department submitted over 100 journal articles, two book chapters and no monographs.

Articles, to be published in top journals, need to be very focused and have just the right degree of originality. They cannot really challenge the conventional wisdom, since peer referees will be doing research in the area largely following the contemporary flow of thought and analysis. In general, this is perfect for developing ‘normal science’ (Kuhn, 1962). But it also means that vibrant debates on issues, both theoretical and policy, are limited.

Books and other policy forums used to provide an alternative channel. My PhD supervisor, James Tobin, author of National Economic Policy (1966), regularly debated with Milton Friedman, who wrote Capitalism and Freedom (1962) on their very different views of the world and optimal economic policy. Less conventional challenges were raised by John Kenneth Galbraith (The Affluent Society, 1958) and Joan Robinson (Economic Philosophy, 1962). One could read Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) or Pigou's Theory of Unemployment (1933) to get conflicting views.

Academic economists would love to be able to affect the policy debate. The government sought to incentivize this by introducing impact to the REF. Instead of just submitting lists of articles, universities would also submit a few essays on how articles had impacted upon the real world. But this fails on two grounds. It doesn't take advantage of academics’ intrinsic interests (particularly in a social science such as economics) in engaging in policy, but focuses upon providing an unnecessary and very indirect extrinsic motivation. Further, research is throwing a pebble into the water – the ripples spread out, merge with ripples from other stones, and tracing back to the original pebble (or academic article) is virtually impossible. It is, in general, far more productive to empower people by providing the channels for engagement.