I agree that we need institutional change to enhance the profession's credibility. I am less convinced that this can be achieved through a mono-leadership, although coordination between various economics organisations could help. Part of the challenge is to make economics more relevant to the real world and more aware of the often missing political economy aspects of their models. Prior to the crisis, mainstream macroeconomics ignored the role of banks and ruled out default by assumption. Much of macroeconomics focussed on Taylor rules, on tweaking the interest rate to achieve macro equilibrium and ignored everything else. As such it became less and less relevant. By paying no attention to banks and default, macroeconomics was inadvertently promoting special interests (i.e. the interests of big banks). Financial economics which studied banks and financial institutions was dominated by views that were consistent with the 'Washington consensus', which openly promoted the interests of big banks, leading to lax regulation. Big banks essentially deciding their own capital requirements allegedly because they knew their risks better than the regulators. Papers that challenge the dominant paradigm are generally very hard to place in 'top journals'. Often the dominant paradigm loses touch with reality and evolves into an exercise of massaging egos to get published. Economics will only become more relevant if the top journals become more open. For this to happen, they also need to manage various conflicts a lot better.