A Global Market with Uneven Borders

This chapter examines where economics PhDs take academic first jobs once the United States is no longer the only major destination in view. The question is whether a declining North American share represents a genuinely global expansion of opportunity or a shift toward a few favored regions. Reading the geography by program tier and by denominator lets us recognize international diversification without mistaking it for universal access.

North America loses share as Europe and East Asia gain

The IZA study divides academic destinations into North America, Europe, East Asia, and the rest of the world. In the early 2000s, roughly 75% of academic placements in its elite-program sample were in North America. In the most recent period, that share is about 50%. Europe gains share, particularly from the middle of the 2010s, and East Asia also becomes a more important destination. The map of a new economics PhD’s first academic job is therefore less centered on the United States than it was at the start of the study period.

This is a substantial change even though the underlying observation is simple: the location of the institution where the first job is taken. It does not mean that half of all economists now work outside North America, nor that North American universities have ceased to matter. It means that, among the academic first placements recorded for these candidates, a smaller proportion is located there. The difference between those statements is the difference between a placement map and a claim about the entire profession.

The regional shift is not evenly distributed across countries. Great Britain remains the dominant European destination throughout the period and recruits more candidates than France, Germany, and Italy combined in the paper’s account. China is a major part of the rise in East Asian placements. The study’s additional destination figures also show that the “rest of the world” category is not a single alternative pole; it contains a mix of countries with very different institutional capacities and labor markets.

The timing and direction of the change suggest that academic hiring has globalized, but the study does not identify the forces behind it. Growing research systems, differences in academic salaries or working conditions, immigration rules, demographic demand, and the supply of university positions could all matter. Candidate preferences and advisor networks may matter too. The placement records reveal where graduates landed, not why a particular institution or country became able to attract them.

Program tier adds a second layer. Graduates from top-10 programs experience a larger increase in European placements. Graduates from programs ranked 11–30 see a more pronounced rise in East Asian placements; for that group, the East Asian share reaches about 30% in 2021. The same broad decline in North American placement thus has different regional expressions depending on where a candidate earned a PhD.

That pattern makes a simple “globalization” label insufficient. A top-10 graduate may be moving into an expanding European circuit that already carries strong international recognition.