AI summary;


Summary of Economic Panel Discussion
Core Debate
At the 25th China Economic Annual Conference, scholars debated whether young economists should prioritize academic research or policy work. Participants included Lu Ming (Shanghai Jiao Tong), Wang Pengfei (Peking University), Wei Chu (Renmin University), and Lin Jianhao (Sun Yat-sen University), moderated by Chen Binkai.
Key Arguments
Lu Ming's Position:

Academic and policy research shouldn't conflict—good policy requires solid academic foundations
Real problem: journals overemphasize technical methods (causal identification, complex models) over meaningful insights
Criticized disconnect from reality: asked how many scholars fully read the Third Plenum document (few raised hands)
Models without policy/institutional context cannot generate useful policy conclusions
Current research is "elaborate carving with no practical relevance"

Wang Pengfei's Position:

Academic and policy research are complementary, not conflicting
Academic research seeks universal, long-term truths; policy research requires immediate, actionable solutions
Defended theoretical models: frictionless models serve as baselines (like vacuum experiments in physics)
Cited examples: Bernanke's research enabled 2008 crisis response; Nordhaus won Nobel for climate work initially ignored
Emphasized comparative advantage: scholars should focus on their strengths

Wei Chu's Position:

Economics must serve society ("经世济民")—research divorced from this purpose requires reflection
Academia lags behind industry and government by 1-2 years in identifying problems
Universities' advantage over government think tanks: theoretical frameworks, international experience, scientific rigor
Proposed solutions: train doctoral students to convert 15,000-word papers into 500-word policy briefs; recognize policy outputs academically

Lin Jianhao's Position:

In macro/monetary policy, academic and policy questions are inherently unified
Three barriers to converting research into policy:

Insufficient understanding of China's political-economic institutions and international politics
Misunderstanding of dynamic, multi-faceted policy objectives (reform, security, development, equity)
Language gap between academic models and policy discourse


Root cause: current generation less engaged with real problems than 1980s-90s reformers; evaluation systems don't reward solving practical issues

Underlying Issue
The deeper question: What role should economics play in society? Economic disciplines face declining enrollment and social relevance, requiring reflection on whether research truly serves national development and public needs.