Research Direction Rankings
Where Should You Bet?
15 research directions synthesized from 4 parallel agent perspectives (empirical opportunity / theoretical frontier / policy salience / Nobel-track), weighted by economist stature (T1 × 3 / T2 × 2 / T3 × 1).
Cross-domain:
Tractability:
of shown
Research Direction
Cross-Domain
Lead Economists
Tractability
No directions match your filters.
⚠️ Directions that look weaker than first appears
- Stevenson's "Meaning Gap" (#14) — r = -0.46 income-meaning correlation is cross-sectional; needs causal identification before anchoring a Nobel program. Too policy-instrumental.
- Algorithmic Science (#15) — Currently a manifesto, not a methodology. Agrawal-McHale-Oettl's "self-driving bicycle" critique is real.
- Stiglitz Info Collapse (#5) — Strong economics, weak Nobel candidate for Stiglitz personally (already won 2001). Nobel path runs through OTHER economists who calibrate.
- Korinek-Lockwood (#2) — Too policy-instrumental for Nobel committee; Mirrlees won for methodology, not tax design. Strong for policy impact though.
📊 Methodology / scoring formula
CIS (Composite Importance Score, 0-10) combines:
- Cross-domain support: How many of the 4 agent top-5 lists feature this direction
- Stature score: Sum of weighted economists championing it (T1 × 3, T2 × 2, T3 × 1)
- Tractability: Can a credible paper be produced in 2-4 years with available data?
- Stakes × Novelty: Policy importance × methodological innovation
CIS scale: 10 = highest priority; 5 = solid but incremental; <5 = niche or speculative.
Stature weighting and Nobel-list bonuses applied consistently across all 4 ranking agents. See underlying agent rankings on GitHub.