Why Stars Matter

The growing peer effects literature pays particular attention to the role of stars. We decompose the causal effect of hiring a star in terms of the productivity impact on: 1) co-located incumbents and 2) new recruits. Using longitudinal university department-level data we report that hiring a star does not increase overall incumbent productivity, although this aggregate effect hides offsetting effects on related (positive) versus unrelated (negative) colleagues. However, the primary impact comes from an increase in the average quality of subsequent recruits. This is most pronounced at mid-ranked institutions, suggesting implications for the socially optimal spatial organization of talent.

[1]  Fabian Waldinger,et al.  Bombs, Brains, and Science: The Role of Human and Physical Capital for the Creation of Scientific Knowledge , 2016, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[2]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Recruiting for Ideas: How Firms Exploit the Prior Inventions of New Hires , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Benjamin F. Jones.  Age and Great Invention , 2004 .

[4]  Charles I. Jones,et al.  R & D-Based Models of Economic Growth , 1995, Journal of Political Economy.

[5]  Li Tang,et al.  Bibliometric fingerprints: name disambiguation based on approximate structure equivalence of cognitive maps , 2010, Scientometrics.

[6]  Fabian Waldinger.  Peer effects in science: evidence from the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany , 2012 .

[7]  M. Weitzman,et al.  Recombinant Growth , 2009 .

[8]  Y. Weiss,et al.  Experience, Vintage, and Time Effects in the Growth of Earnings: American Scientists, 1960-1970 , 1976, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  J. Wooldridge.  Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models , 1999 .

[10]  E. H. Kim.  Are Elite Universities Losing Their Competitive Edge ? , 2006 .

[11]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists , 1991 .

[12]  Holger Ernst,et al.  Inventors are not alike: the distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel , 2000, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[13]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Superstar Extinction , 2008 .

[14]  E. Moretti,et al.  Peers at Work , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[15]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Does Knowledge Accumulation Increase the Returns to Collaboration? , 2013 .

[16]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Gone but not Forgotten: Knowledge Flows, Labor Mobility, and Enduring Social Relationships , 2006 .

[17]  S. Rosen.  The Economics of Superstars , 1981 .

[18]  Alexander Oettl,et al.  Reconceptualizing Stars: Scientist Helpfulness and Peer Performance , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[19]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  Bruce A. Weinberg.  Which Labor Economists Invested in Human Capital? Geography, Vintage, and Participation in Scientific Revolutions , 2006 .

[21]  Klaudia Kaiser,et al.  The Gifts Of Athena Historical Origins Of The Knowledge Economy , 2016 .

[22]  Bruce I. Sacerdote.  Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates , 2001 .

[23]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[24]  Michael Roach,et al.  A Taste for Science? PhD Scientists’ Academic Orientation and Self-Selection into Research Careers in Industry , 2010 .

[25]  Alfred J. Lotka,et al.  The frequency distribution of scientific productivity , 1926 .

[26]  Avi Goldfarb,et al.  Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation , 2006 .

[27]  Benjamin F. Jones.  The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2005 .

[28]  Joel Mokyr,et al.  The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy , 2002 .