たしかに、矢部氏の言うように、同書は2011年の出版以来、資本主義の本質と問題点を明らかにした書として、リベラル知識人や経済学者の間で非常に注目されてきた。『21世紀の資本』で知られる経済学者のトマ・ピケティも「『負債論』、愛しています(I Love Debt)」とコメント。また、ベーシックインカムの導入と1日3時間労働の提唱で話題になった『隷属なき道』（ルトガー・ブレグマン著／文藝春秋）にも大きな影響を与えたといわれる。ブレグマンは「数えきれないほど多くの人々が、仕事人生の全てを、自ら無意味と思う仕事に費やしている」という、グレーバーの論を踏まえた論を展開している。
Returns to scale in research https://aiimpacts.org/returns-to-scale-in-research/
2016-07-06 Featured Articles, Intelligence explosion, Pace of AI Progress (Without Feedback), Speed of AI Transition 0
When universities or university departments produce research outputs?such as published papers?they sometimes experience increasing returns to scale, sometimes constant returns to scale, and sometimes decreasing returns to scale. At the level of nations however, R&D tends to see increasing returns to scale. These results are preliminary.
“Returns to scale” refers to the responsiveness of a process’ outputs when all inputs (e.g. researcher hours, equipment) are increased by a certain proportion. If all outputs (e.g. published papers, citations, patents) increase by that same proportion, the process is said to exhibit constant returns to scale. Increasing returns to scale and decreasing returns to scale refer to situations where outputs still increase, but by a higher or lower proportion, respectively.
Assessing returns to scale in research may be useful in predicting certain aspects of the development of artificial intelligence, in particular the dynamics of an intelligence explosion.
The conclusions in this article are drawn from an incomplete review of academic literature assessing research efficiency, presented in Table 1. These papers assess research in terms of its direct outputs such as published papers, citations, and patents. The broader effects of the research are not considered.
Most of the papers listed below use the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) technique, which is a quantitative technique commonly used to assess the efficiency of universities and research activities. It is capable of isolating the scale efficiency of the individual departments, universities or countries being studied.
Paper Level of comparison Activities assessed Results pertaining to returns to scale
Wang & Huang 2007 Countries’ overall R&D activities Research Increasing returns to scale in research are exhibited by more than two-thirds of the sample
Kocher, Luptacik & Sutter 2006 Countries’ R&D in economics Research Increasing returns to scale are found in all countries in the sample except the US
Cherchye & Abeele 2005 Dutch universities’ research in Economics and Business Management Research Returns to scale vary between decreasing, constant and increasing depending on each university’s specialization
Johnes & Johnes 1993 UK universities’ research in economics Research Constant returns to scale are found in the sample as a whole
Avkiran 2001 Australian universities Research, education Constant returns to scale found in most sampled universities
Ahn 1988 US universities Research, education Decreasing returns to scale on average
Johnes 2006 English universities Research, education Close to constant returns to scale exhibited by most universities sampled
Kao & Hung 2008 Departments of a Taiwanese university Research, education Increasing returns to scale exhibited by the five most scale-inefficient departments. However, no aggregate measure of returns to scale within the sample is presented.
Table 1: Sample of studies of research efficiency that assess returns to scale
Note: This table only identifies increasing/constant/decreasing returns to scale, rather than the size of this effect. Although DEA can measure the relative size of the effect for individual departments/universities/countries within a sample, such results cannot be readily compared between samples/studies.
「Nobel Prizes in Economics, Awarded and Withheld」と題されたEconospeakエントリでピーター・ドーマンが、今年度のノーベル経済学賞は誰が受賞したかよりも誰が受賞しなかったかに注目すべき、と書いている。以下はその末尾。
The reality is this is a nonprize for Weitzman, an attempt to dismiss his approach to combating climate change, even though his position is far closer to the scientific mainstream than Nordhaus’. An example of the enlistment of the uncritical media in this enterprise is today’s New York Times, where Binyamin Appelbaum writes:
Mr. Nordhaus also was honored for his role in developing a model that allows economists to analyze the costs of climate change. His work undergirds a new United Nations report on the dangers of climate change, released Monday in South Korea.
Wrong. The work Nordhaus pioneered in the social cost of carbon is mentioned only twice in the IPCC report, a box in Chapter 2 and another in Chapter 3. The reason it appears only in boxes is that, while the authors of the report wanted to include this work in the interest of being comprehensive, it plays no role in any of their substantive conclusions. And how could it? The report is about the dangers of even just 1.5o of warming, less than the conventional 2o target, and far less than the 3+o Nordhaus is comfortable with. Damages are expressed primarily in terms of uninhabitable land and climate refugees, agricultural failure and food security, and similarly nonmonetary outcomes, not the utility-from-consumption metric on which Nordhaus’ work rests.
The Nordhaus/Romer combo is so artificial and unconvincing it’s hard to avoid the impression that the prize not given to Weitzman is as important as the one given to Nordhaus. This is a clear political statement about how to deal with climate change and how not to deal with it. The Riksbank has spoken: it wants a gradual approach to carbon, one that makes as few economic demands as possible.