We investigate why economics displays a relatively low level of computational reproducibility. We first study the benefits and costs of reproducibility for readers, authors, and academic journals. Second, we show that the equilibrium level of reproducibility may be suboptimally low due to three market failures: a competitive bottleneck effect due to the competition between journals to attract authors, the public good dimension of reproducibility, and the positive externalities of reproducibility outside academia. Third, we discuss different policies to address these market failures and move out of a low reproducibility equilibrium. In particular, we show that coordination among journals could reduce by half the cost of verifying the reproducibility of accepted papers.