[rbavocadotree]

Two areas where I have a little experience:

Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors.

Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the currently dominant theory in your field (even if there has been no progress in decades).

[cambalache]

Both examples are wrong. Lots of economists working on inequality , it is even a hot topic. Your physics example is so vague that is meaningless. Name one promising theory/approach in physics which is not getting interest because it goes against "the currently dominant theory of the field".Tip: LQG does not count.

[rbavocadotree]

No, lots of economists don't. Especially considering how important of a problem it is. It's a "hot topic" because of public opinion at the moment. We have not been attacking it in new and creative ways for decades.

[dunkelheit]

> Name one promising theory/approach in physics which is not getting interest because it goes against "the currently dominant theory of the field".Tip: LQG does not count.

Lack of such promising theories is precisely the point (I guess we are talking specifically about the problem of quantum gravity). Everyone is working with the same 1.5 old approaches and the progress has stalled. Of course individually this strategy is rational because if you try to think of something new and it doesn't work out (which is very probable) your career is toast. But imagine what the brainpower poured into string theory could achieve with a more breadth-first search strategy.

[chasedehan]

There are a large number of people working on inequality.

The two most common fields studying it are: 1) Development 2) Labor Although there are a number of Macro-Economists who have studied the impact of inequality on growth. The reason you may not read about it is that the relationship between inequality and growth is a largely "solved" problem. It is "unfashionable" because of that.

[sideshowb]

Is it? Can you link me to an econometric review?

[rbavocadotree]

The fact that the field thinks it is a solved problem is a marvelous example of what the essay is talking about!

[chasedehan]

Not exactly. It is a political problem not an economic one.

[QuesnayJr]

I genuinely don't understand where these ideas about economics come from. Inequality is a hot topic, and it has been for years.

[alexandercrohde]

Okay, but to play devil's advocate -- if you study something controversial and/or unfashionable in academia (such as economics of inequality) aren't you just going to be ignored by the community?

I think being unfashionable is more viable in fields that are meritocratic and don't require popular approval to succeed.

[mannykannot]

I have this suspicion that, in economics, trends and fashions have sometimes formed around principles whose primary attraction is that they make the math tractable.