Timur Ergen
LightNews LightNews
trgn.bsky.social
Timur Ergen
@trgn.bsky.social
1.9K followers 530 following 34 posts
Social Scientist @iaw
https://tergen.org
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mpifg.bsky.social
New issue of "economic sociology" out now: "Is globalization over? What tariffs tell us."

Edited by Jeanne Lazarus, with contributions by Jonathan Levy, @quinnslobodian.com, @yingyaowang.bsky.social and @trgn.bsky.social

s.gwdg.de/ORk2ux
Shipping containers with flags of china, the US and the EU
December 11, 2025 at 12:50 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mpifg.bsky.social
🚨 MAX-CPE is back! Our online series on Comparative Political Economy offers monthly workshops on topics ranging from financial nationalism to tax havens and geofinance.

Coming up December 17, 2025: “Making Global Migration More Acceptable?” by @alexandreafonso.bsky.social

s.gwdg.de/vcF6uF
Date: December 17, 2025, 13:00. Title: "Making Global Migration More Acceptable? How the Rights and Obligations of Immigrants Upon Arrical Shape Preferences for Immigrant Admission." Speaker: Alexandre Afonso.
December 10, 2025 at 12:18 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
vapunkt.bsky.social
131 review request for around 30 papers 🫣
pgolka.bsky.social Philipp Golka @pgolka.bsky.social · 17d
Just realized we've already sent out 131 reviewer requests for our SER special issue with @vapunkt.bsky.social & @trgn.bsky.social.

Have to admit I totally underestimated the time and effort it takes just to secure reviewers. So a big thanks to everyone who agreed to our request!
December 6, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
pgolka.bsky.social
Just realized we've already sent out 131 reviewer requests for our SER special issue with @vapunkt.bsky.social & @trgn.bsky.social.

Have to admit I totally underestimated the time and effort it takes just to secure reviewers. So a big thanks to everyone who agreed to our request!
December 6, 2025 at 2:17 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
annahehenberger.bsky.social
Call for participants 🔥

The 4th Doctoral Conference @mpifg.bsky.social is happening and if you’re pursuing your PhD you really should be part of it.

It’s a relaxed, super inspiring atmosphere and you‘ll build a great network of peers 🌍

Submission is open for 4 more days ✨
December 4, 2025 at 3:55 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
timbartik.bsky.social
As I have argued, the most cost-effective ways to help distressed places is to provide "customized services" rather than business tax incentives. Such services include infrastructure and training. dev-equitablegrowth.pantheonsite.io/federal-and-...
Federal and state governments can help solve the employment problems of people in distressed places to spur equitable growth
How to best target economically distressed places with job creation programs and what job creation programs are most effective.
dev-equitablegrowth.pantheonsite.io
December 1, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
abenewman.bsky.social
1/Senior US official caught coaching Russia on how to massage Trump on Ukraine deal. Why? Because we are entering a new international order based not in state interests but clique interests. Welcome to neo-royalism.
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Witkoff Advised Russia on How to Pitch Ukraine Plan to Trump
US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff, fresh from the triumph of the Gaza peace deal, held a phone call last month with a senior Kremlin official to suggest they work together on a similar plan for Ukra...
www.bloomberg.com
November 27, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
fgenovese.bsky.social
With thanks to @ukandeu.bsky.social for asking me & Patrick Bayer to summarize our recent @bjpols.bsky.social article where we argue that while UK/EU communities exposed to climate mitigation are generally afraid of net zero, some may be more interested in int'l climate cooperation than you think...
November 24, 2025 at 1:29 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
jakemgrumbach.bsky.social
The Eric Schickler essay in Larry Bartel's symposium on "What Trump Has Taught Us About Political Science" is one of the most insightful pieces I've read in 2025.

US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.

open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
November 19, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
roderikrekker.bsky.social
(5/10) Analyses on 22 years of ESS data from 30 countries provided clear and consistent support for this gender intensification explanation, by demonstrating that the youth gender gap peaks in middle adolescence, narrows during late adolescence, and mostly disappears in early adulthood.
November 16, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
tbenner.bsky.social
Just in time for German vice chancellor Klingbeil’s China visit more evidence of China shock gutting German core industries.

www.ft.com/content/239e...
November 13, 2025 at 6:31 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
benbraun.bsky.social
The central argument in this excellent paper & thread is that the open-access turn has neglected profit; indeed, it turbo-charged publishers’ margins. As political economists who know a thing or two about profit and power we should speak up a lot more. As it says below: What we’re doing is crazy.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hansonmark.bsky.social
Scientists operate on principles of good faith. But this is just ridiculous. If you, dear reader, take nothing else away from The Drain paper, it is that publishers cannot be invited to the table any longer.

They can participate and carve a space, but they can't be part of shaping policy.

3/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hansonmark.bsky.social
For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse.

It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so.

4/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mathiaslarsen.bsky.social
Pleased to have my research featured in @nytimes.com reporting on China's role in a global green transition

www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/c...
A Flood of Green Tech From China Is Upending Global Climate Politics
www.nytimes.com
November 11, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
benbraun.bsky.social
Imagine a wealthy country that is several years into a brutal energy price and Chinese competition double shock that's decimating its industrial base.

What should the economy minister do?
a) Something
b) Double down on carbon shock therapy by bringing the old ordo guard back in from the cold... 1/2
Nach Ludwig Erhards Vorbild: Reiche will weniger Staat und mehr Markt
Die Wirtschaftsministerin will den Staat schrumpfen – und huldigt Ludwig Erhard. Mit diesem Überdruss an Pathos wird ihre Wirtschaftspolitik aber nicht besser.
www.surplusmagazin.de
November 11, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
70sbachchan.bsky.social
“China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels. This trend will continue simply because renewables are cheap.”

Gift link: China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics
The world’s biggest manufacturer now has an interest in the world decarbonising
www.economist.com
November 8, 2025 at 6:55 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
pardoguerra.bsky.social
After publishing the 1953 paper with stolen data and winning a Nobel Prize, James Watson basically coasted on the back of Franklin's work for an astonishing 71 years with few substantive contributions to the field.
jlkaufmann.bsky.social JL Kaufmann @jlkaufmann.bsky.social · Nov 7
I see James Watson has died.

What did Watson discover?

Rosalind Franklin's lab notes.

Only we spell it 'S-T-E-A-L' these days.
November 7, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
carlbergstrom.com
A week after the arXiv was forced to tighten down on submissions because of overwhelming volumes of AI slop, bioRxiv is throwing the doors wide open.
mehr.nz samuel mehr @mehr.nz · Nov 7
disappointed that @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social is implicitly endorsing the use of LLMs to replace scientific thought

@richardsever.bsky.social this is a short-sighted move and a net negative for science
odedrechavi.bsky.social Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · Nov 6
IT'S HAPPENING! 💥 I'm psyched to launch the collaboration between @qedscience.bsky.social & @openrxiv.bsky.social @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social! Preprint + q.e.d = your science is out there, and anyone can appreciate it. Let's care about making discoveries, and not on “getting published” (1/3) 👇
November 7, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
adamgurri.liberalcurrents.com
As @awhf.bsky.social documents, that’s exactly why ALEC is so successful www.liberalcurrents.com/against-mast...
November 7, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
europeatharvard.bsky.social
We're delighted to mark 100 years of @daadworldwide.bsky.social & the German Academic Scholarship Foundation. Join us on 11/13 to celebrate their mission of academic exchange and explore German-American academic & political relations. @dziblatt.bsky.social

RSVP: ces.fas.harvard.edu/events/2025/...
November 7, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
abenewman.bsky.social
1/ As Trump goes to Asia, EU leaders threaten to take action on China. Rare earth restrictions may have finally brought the EU out of its slumber. At the same time, Europe pushing for greater free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Will action match words?
www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Von der Leyen Says EU Ready to Act on China Rare-Earth Threat
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Brussels is considering all options to react to China’s rare-earth threat.
www.bloomberg.com
October 25, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
jonasnahm.com
Industrial policy is back — and it's changing fast. What started as "green" strategy is now a global race for clean tech competitiveness and economic security. But do we actually know what works? That's what we're asking at the New Energy Industrial Strategy (NEIS) Center. /1
October 24, 2025 at 5:09 PM