Quality kills the mediastar? Career paths of intellectuals

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Brinja Meiseberg ; Thomas Ehrmann ; Jochen Lengers
• 关键词：Incentives ; Search costs ; Superstar effects ; winner ; takes ; all markets ; Quality assessment
• 刊名：Journal of Business Economics
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：December 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：86
• 期：9
• 页码：1043-1066
• 全文大小：443 KB
• 刊物主题：Business/Management Science, general; Production/Logistics/Supply Chain; Organization/Planning; Human Resource Management; Accounting/Auditing; Business Taxation/Tax Law;
• 出版者：Springer Berlin Heidelberg
• ISSN：1861-8928
• 卷排序：86

文摘

Recent economic crises show that forecasts made by “experts” are frequently off the mark, fueling discussion about a potential decline in intellectuals’ reliability to offer opinions of value. While intellectuals were originally assumed to be trusted with sound analyses of developments in society, nowadays intellectuals (or those pretending to be) are often blamed for primarily striving for prominence, giving birth to the role model of the “public intellectual”. We adopt an economic perspective and take a market-oriented view on intellectual output. Our data suggests that the market for public intellectuals brings forth few omnipresent “media stars” that are able to largely cover the market demand for “expert knowledge”. On such markets with “winner-takes-all” characteristics, the best performers can command substantially higher (non)monetary incomes. Our research question is: What separates the media stars from the long-tail of media midgets? Thereby, we focus on an economic issue of general interest: Does it pay off to further engage in knowledge specialization, or is it better to capitalize on your current skillset and engage in increasing market presence? We focus on news media and TV presence of Germany’s most influential intellectuals and identify factors that create versus destroy the chances for “intellectual stardom”, applying both a static and a longitudinal perspective. Based on our results, we cautiously draw some conclusions concerning developments of the quality of public intellectual output offered.