在Stigler看来，学术界从短期看是个自治体，因此有些从业者可以自娱自乐；但任何学科从长期看都要通过竞争获取社会资源，总存在外部约束。

学术界的自治体现在同行评价的重要性。学术成就是由同行评价的，毕竟外行难以领导内行。“Who decides what subjects to work on, and how good each research product is? In the short run—from year to year—the judges are the fellow scientists. If the subject is at all complicated, the legislators, the bureaucrate, and the academic administrators do not understand the ongoing research, let along know how to steer it in the most promising direction. The governors of science are the self-perpetuating and self-selecting group of leading practitioners. (p. 85)”

同行评议也有危险，正统的观念可能妨碍学术的发展，但多元化的竞争有助于避免这种危险。“A system of government of a science by a(?) self-chosen elite has the potentiality for stagnation and scholasticism of the sort that stultified Oxford and Cambridge Universities in the eighteenth century, but in the American context these evils are escaped. There are so many good universities (not under one control), so many foundations, so many scientific journals, that each major discipline becomes a competitive industry. No one model of orthodoxy can be imposed on a science, although the potentiality of centralized direction has increase since the federal governmeng has taken a powerful role in the financing of research. (p. 85)”

总体上，学科内部的竞争促进学术的发展，就是所谓“来自竞争的繁荣”。“The late Joseph Ben-David, a distinguished sociologist of science, attributed the rise of several American disciplines to world leadership to the fact that American scence is less centralized than that ofFranceorGermany. A competitive science is more open to new ideas than a tightly organized scientific establishment. The estabilishment opposes utterly original ideas not only for the good reason that they are usually wrong, but also for the bad reason that when the new ideas are right they render obsolete or irrelevant knowledge of the leaders of the establishment. (p. 85)”

从长期看，不同学科的竞争，以及不同国家的学科竞争起重要作用。“In a long run, a science is not self-perpetuating in its composition and problems. Sooner or later those in power will ask for results or better results. The results need not be simply utilitarian (cure disease X or depression Y), but they must satisfy a significant element of the society that they are worth their cost. I conjecture that even here competition plays a large role: competition among disciplines to solve important problems (illustreated by the merging of physics and chemistry), and competition of rival national sciences. (p. 86)”

这让我联想到，有些人在学科内部的竞争中失利，就觉得自己受到压制，想借助媒体和公众等学科外部力量，甚至贬低自己的学科，这显然是非职业化和表现。多数情况下，也是不明智的表现，最吃亏的往往还是这些人自己。

既然有竞争，就类似于市场。Stigler确实认为学术活动是个市场化过程。“Important individual advances and bold gambles are so tiny a fraction of scientific work, however, as to be comparable to the crust on the tip of the iceberg. Scientific research is a market process, differing vastly in form but little in substance, from the comparable activities of grocers or manufacturers of computers. Individual scholars distribute themselves by the action of self-interest. (p. 84)”

从市场化角度看，学术界存在的“赢家通吃”现象鼓励原创，是高风险高回报机制的作用。“Why does the public wish to acclaim superior performance in various fields? Does it have a fund of admiration it needs to use up? To continue my conjecture, the acclaim is intended to stimulate truly major accomplishments in the various fields. Major scientific achievements are usually the result of high-risk work. The incentive structure to elicit mojor achievement in academic life has always relied primarily upon prestige and research facilities. Even the best-paid professor in the fifty leading universities seldom receives three times as much salary as the worst-paid professor. An institution that focuses the prestige of superior work on a few people is a helpful corrective to the egalitarian structure of universities and nowadays of society, and an incentive to undertake high-risk research. (p. 90)”

学术奖励的顶峰或许是Nobel奖。作为该奖得主，Stigler对该奖作用有深刻认识。“The prize is not a device for calling important scientific work to the attention of the sceentist’s fellow workers. … The prize is an added incentive to enter the fields in which it is given. (p. 88)”本质上，该奖是内行评而给外行用。“The main effect of the prize is to endow the recipients with a large measure of prestige among non-scientists. (p. 89)”这或许也是国内奖项的改革方向，不能外行评但用于同行比较。

斯蒂格勒谈大学—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈学者—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈专家—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记

斯蒂格勒谈知识—读Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist札记