50 years of HOPE-V3
Transcript of 50 years of HOPE-V3
50 years of HOPE: changing priorities
in the historiography of economics
José Edwards1
“A scholarly movement is a collective phenomenon requiring
leaders and followers as well as ideas. It needs an institutional base
(or bases) and an ‘invisible college’ or communications network”
A.W. Coats (1983)
Fifty years past Bob Coats’ (1969) “Research Priorities in the History of Economics” – the
first article in History of Political Economy (HOPE) – the opportunity arises to explore how
such priorities change in time. In line with recent quantitative work by historians of
economics (see Edwards et al. 2018a), we compiled a dataset with all 3,084 documents
published in HOPE Volumes 1-50: 1,551 articles, 1,027 book reviews, 439 articles in
supplements, and 67 “other” documents. Here below we analyze that dataset following
some basic guidelines of bibliometrics, to produce a survey based on classifications arising
from the decisions made by all the editors, authors, and referees, in the process of accepting
and shaping the reference-lists of all documents published during the first five decades of
HOPE.
The following text develops in four sections. The first one begins with an overview of
bibliometrics and a general examination of the 3,084 documents in the dataset. The second
section analyzes the 1,551 articles published in HOPE Volumes 1-50, separated into each
one of the first five decades of the journal. The third one studies the 439 articles in HOPE
2
supplements (Volumes 22-50), together with the 1,027 book reviews (Volumes 7-50) and
67 “other” documents. The fourth (and concluding) section discusses the main findings of
this survey, which show how research priorities (as revealed in HOPE, at least), have
changed, indeed, from a beginning including a number of studies on marginalism, the
marginalist revolution and the emergence of modern economics, to these days, in which the
most cited authors are rather P. Samuelson and J.M. Keynes.
Overview
A quick introduction to bibliometrics
Despite its “long history” (Shapiro 1992, Hood & Wilson 2001), bibliometrics developed
predominantly during and after the 1960s, drawing from Eugene Garfield’s Science
Citation Index (1963) and Derek Price’s statistical analysis of the “Big Science” of that
period (see Garfield 1955, 1963; Price 1963, 1965). Both Garfield and Price were
connected to the historiography and sociology of science, their work intertwining with that
of Francis Galton [1822-1911], Alfred Lotka [1880-1949], Robert Merton [1910-2003] and
Thomas Kuhn [1922-1996]2.
2 Eugene Garfield [1925-2017] was a chemist (BA), library scientist (MA) and linguist
(PhD), who founded the Institute for Scientific Information in 1956 (sold to Thomson
Reuters in 1992, became Clarivate Analytics in 2016). He initiated The Scientist, Current
Contents, and the Journal Citations Report, and – recalling Vannevar Bush’s (1945)
“Memex” – presented the Science Citation Index as “a forerunner of the World Brain”
(Garfield 1964, p. 525).
3
Among the most salient features of that early bibliometrics were: (i) the idea that there is
a stable relationship between scientific documents, established through their references to
earlier work (i.e. their reference-lists), and (ii) that those references can be processed to
classify the corresponding documents based on decisions about them made by their authors,
editors and referees, without the need of additional (i.e. external) judgments about the
content of those documents3. Such findings proved useful during the 1960s, for dealing
with the exponential growth of science and the need to effectively sort that literature. John
Tukey’s is a clear description of those two aspects of citation indexing/bibliometrics:
“The necessary judgments are already being made, the links are routinely forged. We
have only to bring the citations together, re-sort them, and make the resulting citation
index available […]. All the scientific decisions, all the decisions about content,
which are required to make a citation index operative are made on a dispersed basis.
Each author as he writes his article, each referee or editor as he considers it, is already
responsible for exhibiting, through references to earlier work, the proper relationship
Derek John de Solla Price [1922-1983] was en English historian of science (PhD,
Cambridge), physicist (BA, PhD) and mathematician (BA), who worked for the
Smithsonian Institution, and the Universities of Princeton and Yale in the U.S. See Garfield
& Merton (1986) and Leydesdorff et al. (2010), for accounts on Price’s life and work.
3 This does not mean that bibliometrics, i.e. Derek Price’s “science of science”, is free from
all sorts of judgments. Built from editorial decisions/procedures involving authors, editors
and referees in different disciplines, it also relies on series of “technical” rules (more
below) used for processing the documents’ reference-lists. See Edwards et al. (2018b), for
discussions of the several shortcomings of quantitative historical research.
4
of each article to the earlier literature. The numbers of authors, referees, and editors
probably will grow exponentially at the rate as the literature itself. Each person will
need to make about the same number of decisions as to ‘what is related to what’ as he
does now.” (Tukey 1962, p. 35)
Indexed by Garfield’s Institute for Scientific Information (now Clarivate Analytics) and
part of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), HOPE Volumes 1-50 (i.e. since 1969)
appear listed in the Core Collection of the Web of Science (WoS), including the reference-
lists in their documents. We checked and complemented that dataset by retrieving the
information for all missing documents, Table 1 showing the complete set for the whole 50-
year period (i.e. the 3,084 documents)4.
The dataset: HOPE Volumes 1-50
An overview of the dataset reveals some basic features of HOPE’s publication pattern.
Whereas Volumes 1-5 include research articles together with a few “other” documents,
book reviews appear systematically since 1974 (Volume 6). As for the number of issues,
there were originally just two per volume (1969-1973), then four (1974-1989), and now
4 The information of those missing documents (i.e. 151 documents mostly in HOPE
Volumes 35-37), was obtained from either Scopus, EconLit or the HOPE website, and is
included in this study. That complement is part of a New Initiatives project of the History
of Economics Society (HES) – covering also the Journal of the History of Economic
Thought, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, and History of Economic
Ideas – which will be soon available through the HES.
5
five (since 1990): four regular issues (Issues 1-4) and a Supplement (Issue suppl_1).
Supplements are the product of annual HOPE Conferences, the purpose of which is “to
advance the cutting edge of research in the history of economics”
(http://hope.econ.duke.edu).
Table 1: number of documents in HOPE Volumes 1-50
Year Volume Articles Book reviews Supplements Other Total
1969 1 22 1 23 1970 2 20 20 1971 3 26 26 1972 4 30 30
1973 5 26 26
1974 6 28 3 31
1975 7 36 5 4 44
1976 8 24 12 2 38
1977 9 24 35 3 62
1978 10 25 24 3 52 1979 11 31 15 46 1980 12 35 29 1 65 1981 13 34 19 1 54 1982 14 34 26 4 64 1983 15 30 25 2 57 1984 16 32 28 1 61 1985 17 29 36 7 72 1986 18 33 41 7 81 1987 19 39 16 55 1988 20 34 32 1 67 1989 21 38 21 6 65 1990 22 42 30 18 90 1991 23 41 27 15 3 86 1992 24 40 25 12 14 91 1993 25 33 32 17 2 84 1994 26 35 27 16 1 79 1995 27 43 10 19 72 1996 28 31 15 22 68 1997 29 29 44 14 87 1998 30 28 7 12 47
6
1999 31 33 26 18 77 2000 32 41 48 12 101 2001 33 38 20 16 74 2002 34 34 12 26 1 73 2003 35 28 46 15 89 2004 36 28 20 12 1 61 2005 37 36 18 16 2 72 2006 38 25 19 16 60 2007 39 31 27 19 77 2008 40 34 22 9 65 2009 41 26 17 19 62 2010 42 27 22 13 62 2011 43 38 11 14 63 2012 44 23 46 11 80 2013 45 22 26 11 59 2014 46 26 22 17 65 2015 47 23 15 11 49 2016 48 25 10 11 46 2017 49 25 12 11 48 2018 50 36 4 17 57
All 1-50 1551 1027 439 67 3084 Note: “Articles” include documents indexed as either “articles”, “reviews” (i.e. review articles), “editorial material” (i.e. introductory/framing papers), and “items about individuals”. “Supplements” include all documents in HOPE Supplements. “Other” includes short documents indexed as either “corrections”, “additions”, “editorials”, “letters” or “notes”.
A survey in five decades, and a separate analysis for HOPE Supplements,
book reviews and other documents
Is it possible to identify any meaningful and yet practical break down for this whole
dataset? After analyzing a series of features – both within the dataset and related to the
broader historiography of economics (i.e. including publication in other journals) – we
chose to divide the dataset into five decades, and to separate the “articles” from all other
HOPE documents (more below). After all, HOPE was the only specialist journal during its
first decade (and there are two “HOPE at 10” surveys worth discussing to better explain our
methods), it developed alongside the History of Economics Society Bulletin (1979-1989)
7
during its second decade, and has since shared the publication output of the subfield with
the HOPE Supplements (since 1990), the Journal of the History of Economic Thought
(JHET, since 1990), History of Economic Ideas (HEI, since 1993) and the European
Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET, since 1993)5. HOPE supplements,
together with the book reviews and “other” documents, are reviewed separately from the
“articles” in our third section.
“HOPE at 10” surveys by Coats and De Marchi & Lodewijks
There are two surveys for the first decade of HOPE: one by Coats (1983) and another one
by Neil De Marchi and John Lodewijks (1983, same issue). Interestingly, despite Coats
5 Besides those four specialist journals (the only ones so far partially indexed in the Web of
Science) there are many others, namely, the Keizaigakushigakkai Nenpo (Japan, since
1963), the History of Economic Thought Newsletter (UK, since 1968), History of Economic
Thought and Policy (Italy, since 1974), Cahiers d’économie politique (France, since 1974),
the journal of the Dogmenhistorische Ausschuss (Germany, since 1980), the HETSA
Bulletin (Australia, since 1981), Quaderni di storia dell'economia politica (1983-1992),
Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology (since 1983), Oeconomia
(France, since 1984) and the Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought (Spain,
since 2014). The lack of complete citation indexes for all history of economics journals but
HOPE, makes it difficult to go beyond mere descriptions about how (i.e. not explanations
of why) research priorities have been changing in this subfield. See HOPE (2002, Suppl. 1),
for more information of history of economics journals.
8
advancing the concepts of “invisible college” and “communications network” (both
landmarks of Derek Price’s bibliometrics), neither his survey, nor De Marchi and
Lodewijks’, developed on them while studying/quantifying their documents (i.e. the 1,070
submissions to HOPE from September 1968 to August 1979).
Although aware that statistical analysis was the “obvious method of coping with the
increasing flood of economic literature” (ibid., p. 314), Coats’ survey was “admittedly,
personal and impressionistic rather than authoritative or exhaustive” (Coats 1983, p. 303)6.
His “selective review” concluded that the “pattern of submissions to this journal has
remained obstinately conventional”, an observation based on De Marchi and Lodewijks’
analysis (below). For Coats (1983), it was then “time to shift the spotlight away from the
‘great men’ who continue to feature so prominently in submissions to HOPE” (ibid., p.
317).
De Marchi and Lodewijks’ (1983) survey was quantitative, and acknowledged how
historiographic categories were “difficult to define satisfactorily” (De Marchi and
Lodewijks 1983, p. 322). Figure 1 shows their attempt at classifying the first 1,070
submissions to HOPE into “familiar subjects”. In doing so, they accounted for 690 of them
(i.e. 64.5%).
6 George Stigler had “been the pioneer” using statistical methods for studying economic
literature (Coats 1983, p. 314). However, Coats noted how “little of this research [had] yet
surfaced in HOPE” even though it seemed “certain to be of increasing interest to future
historians of economics” (ibid.).
9
Figure 1: De Marchi & Lodewijks’ (1983) Table 1
They discussed “how far familiar categories capture[d] the character of submissions for the
period 1968-79 as a whole”, pointing out how work “directly on or about just six major
figures (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Marshall, and Keynes) account[ed] for almost
two-fifths of the number of submissions covered by Table 1 [i.e. 275 of the 1,070]” (ibid.,
p. 322).
Figure 2 reproduces De Marchi and Lodewijks’ second and “different subject
classification”, this time including 1,006 submissions (94% of them). That sorting
corroborated how prominent the “great men” tradition remained, as it even permeated
studies on “minor or neglected figures”:
“It might be thought that the strong showing under Column (B) [Figure 2] reflects a
movement away from the Great Man tradition of scholarship in the history of
economics. On closer inspection, it turns out that the vast majority of entries in
Column (B) take their rise in the real or imagined fact that their subjects are important
10
because they also had ideas that are to be found in works of the acknowledged Great”
(ibid., p. 325)
Figure 2: De Marchi & Lodewijks’ (1983) Table 3
Some further analysis led de Marchi and Lodewijks to claiming that submissions over the
first decade of HOPE were seemingly “strongly dominated” by two approaches: “the Great
Man (and by definition, Lesser Men) tradition, and the [whiggish] tradition which takes
contemporary economic theory as some sort of standard of truth and seeks to push
backwards in time to discover first recognitions of ‘correct’ formulations” (ibid., p. 325)7.
Here below, we survey all HOPE publications using a somehow different methodology.
7 De Marchi and Lodewijks arrived at these claims by also studying “submissions which do
not fall within the two [other] traditions of historical writing” (ibid.). They classified these
“neglected categories” (136 or 12.7% of the 1,070 submissions), into “Comprehensive re-
interpretations of the history of economics” (30 submissions), “Development of data, tools,
techniques” (12 submissions), “Economic theory and policy” (52 submissions), and
“Sociology of economics” (42 submissions).
11
HOPE articles in Volumes 1-50 (1969-2018)
This section discusses HOPE’s 1,551 “articles”, which (unlike De Marchi and Lodewijks)
we classify using their reference-lists. But before that, Figure 3 gives a general overview of
those references, by showing the ten most frequently cited authors for the whole 50-year
period (by decades).
Representative of about 8% of the just over 86,000 citations in the whole dataset
(i.e. those in all 2,976 documents including reference-lists), Figure 3 shows a few general
trends among the ten most frequently cited “great economists”. Whereas citations to A.
Marshall, J. Schumpeter and J.S. Mill amount for almost half of those references for the
first decade (46%) – and K. Marx (with F. Engels) for 22% of them during the second
decade – the most prominent these last ten years are P. Samuelson (23%) and J.M. Keynes
(15.5%). Citations to J.S. Mill and J. Hicks have relatively declined in time, whereas those
to A. Smith, M. Friedman and F. Hayek have been increasing.
12
Figure 3: 10 most frequently cited authors by decades (1-5) in all 2,976 documents with
reference-lists
With very similar trends appearing for the 1,551 “articles” published in Issues1-4, the case
is different when considering just the HOPE Supplements. That is one among the main
reasons (more below), why we treat those documents separately in the next section.
Tables 2-6 represent networks of articles in Issues1-4, for each one of the five
decades. These networks were created by producing the links between the documents
through bibliographic couplings8, and then using a community finding algorithm to detect
communities within each network. This sorting system draws from Derek Price’s concepts
of “invisible colleges” and “research fronts”, with the different communities/fronts 8 See Gingras (2016) and Claveau and Gingras (2016) for descriptions of such couplings, in
which links between documents are created based on the similarity of their reference-lists.
See also Claveau and Herfeld (2018) and Herfeld and Doehne (2018), for historiographic
discussions of network analysis.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4 5
J.S.Mill
J.Hicks
M.Friedman
A.Marshall
K.Marx
A.Smith
J.Schumpeter
F.Hayek
P.Samuelson
J.M.Keynes
13
including articles sharing similar reference-lists (e.g. those citing mostly Jevons, Marshall
and Pareto vs. those referring to Keynes, Ohlin and Patinkin, in the second and fourth
communities in Table 2)9. Our focus on these relationships helps us describing the HOPE
literature-set into more detail, based on just two procedures: making the bibliographic
couplings to create the networks, and then clustering each network through a community
finding algorithm10.
9 Overall, Tables 2-6 include 1,476 of the 1,551 possible “articles”, the result of excluding
the 75 documents not coupling with any other one in their corresponding networks. These
“articles” correspond mostly to short editorial material (e.g. framing papers, see note below
Table 1), with less than five references in them.
10 The HOPE dataset was processed using R (https://www.r-project.org) to get a basic
representation of the whole set (e.g. Table 1, Figure 3), and then Stata14
(https://www.stata.com/stata14) for cleaning and coupling the reference lists of the
documents (i.e. making the bibliographic couplings, to build the networks by decades).
After that, we used Blondel et al.’s (2008) community detection algorithm via Gephi
(https://gephi.org), to cluster the documents in each network. The different
communities/clusters presented in Tables 2-6 indicate the most frequent title-words and
references (by first last-names) for each community (frequencies in brackets). “Title-
words” exclude all stop words (e.g. “the”, “of”, “and”, “in”), first names (e.g. “Adam”,
“David”, “Karl”, “John”), and a few other terms like “early”, “doctrine”, “century”,
“theory”, “thought”, “analysis”, and derivatives of “economy” or “history”, which seemed
less informative than those deployed in each table.
14
Articles in HOPE Volumes 1-10
Table 2: Articles in HOPE Volumes 1-10 (1969-1978)
Communities Title-words References
24.15% (57) Marginalism (5), Development (5), Monetary (3), Modern (3), Marginal (3)
Fisher (174), Schumpeter (69), Mill (45), Walras (33), Smith (30), Samuelson (24), Stigler (22), Laveleye (22), Robinson (20), Clark (20), Marshall (19), Dupuit (19), Jevons (18), Spengler (17)
19.07% (45) Marginalism (4), Marginal (4), Social (3), Revolution (3), Political (3)
Jevons (39), Marshall (36), Pareto (28), Kuhn (27), Coats (25), Stigler (24), Spengler (24), Bronfenbrenner (24), Marx (21), Hutchison (17), Goodwin (17)
16.95% (40)
Ricardian (6), Malthus (5), Trade (3), Ricardo (3), Proprietor (3), Political (3), Policy (3), Peasant (3), Model (3), Mill (3), Marshall (3)
Mill (92), Marshall (86), McCulloch (50), Malthus (47), Ricardo (36), Torrens (32), Blaug (29), Jevons (27), Smith (24), Sraffa (23), Robbins (23), Sismondi (22), Stigler (21), Fetter (20), Leslie (18), Keynes (17), Harrison (17)
16.1% (38) Ohlin (6), Monetary (5), Keynes (5), Multiplier (4), Policy (3), Origins (3), General (3), Function (3)
Keynes (90), Ohlin (55), Patinkin (32), Tidskrift (29), Davidson (24), Myrdal (22), Currie (22), Samuelson (17)
13.56% (32) Smith (9), Smith’s (3), Growth (3), Veblen (2), Value (2), Models (2), Laissez-faire (2), Banking (2)
Smith (47), Viner (30), Marx (16), Mitchell (15), Mill (15), Weber (13), Veblen (13)
9.32% (22) Value (3), Marx (2), Ricardian (2), Labor (2)
Marx (91), Ricardo (76), Keizaigaku (20), Samuelson (18),
0.85% (2) Two Articles, by A. Leijonhu and J. Gelting Mill (3), Buchanan (3)
TOTAL: 100% (236 of 261)
Smith (13), Development (11), Monetary (10), Marginalism (10), Value (9), Political (9), Policy (8), Social (8), Marginal (8), Growth (8), Revolution (7), Marx (7), Supply (6), Ricardian (6), Public (6), Ohlin (6), Modern (6), Model (6), Labor (6), General (6)
Fisher (196), Mill (180), Marshall (158), Keynes (135), Schumpeter (118), Smith (113), Marx (102), Jevons (89), Stigler (74), Samuelson (74), Viner (73), Malthus (71), Robinson (67), McCulloch (63), Blaug (58), Ricardo (57), Spengler (56), Ohlin (56)
Table 2 sorts the articles in HOPE Volumes 1-10 into seven different communities. As
pointed out earlier, instead of classifying them by topics or research methods (like De
Marchi and Lodewijks 1983), this sorting highlights “invisible colleges” in Derek Price’s
15
sense: scholars observable at “research fronts” (i.e. the different communities), where they
find others “looking at the same problems and trying to pick apples off the same tree”
(Price 1963, p. 64). For Price, authors at these fronts are “interested and willing to monitor
the work of these similar individuals who are his rivals and his peers” (ibid.).
For this first decade (Table 2), the largest (57-article) community includes work by
authors the “best connected” of which are R. Ekelund, R. Hebert, W. Jaffe, R. Meek, L.
Moss, and P. McNulty11. These authors, all at the same “front”, share references to mostly
I. Fisher, J. Schumpeter, J.S. Mill and L. Walras, and also (albeit less so), to A. Marshall, J.
Dupuit, and W.S. Jevons12. Their work develops mostly on marginalist topics like, for
instance, “marginalism and Marxism”, “Edgeworth’s contract curve”, “marginalism and the
boundaries of economics”, and the “origins of marginalism”.
The second largest community (45 articles) includes work by, namely, A.W. Coats,
V. Tarascio, J. Spengler, C. Goodwin, M. Bronfenbrenner and M. Blaug. It also relates to
marginalism, the analysis of which is particularly salient during the first decade of HOPE
(more below). However, this front appears more focused on methodological/historiographic
topics like “scientific revolutions” in general (and the marginalist in particular), discussions
11 All authors and topics presented through the descriptions of all communities in this
survey (those in Tables 2-6), come from documents showing the higher “degrees”, and are
listed in decreasing order (from higher to lower). “Degrees” (i.e. the number of links
between the documents, or bibliographic couplings) reveal the number of connections each
document has with all other documents in its network.
12 References to Fisher (164 of them) are concentrated in just one 1977 article by W. Allen.
16
about the historiography of economics (including Coats’ 1969 article on research
priorities”), and studies about the “spread of marginalism” in its different aspects.
The third (40-article) community includes work by D. Levy, M. Akhtar, F. Fetter,
T. Hutchison, J. Cochrane and S. Rashid, on topics related to the political economy of D.
Ricardo, T. Malthus and J. Mill. Examples of these topics are “J. Mill and comparative
advantage”, the “rise and decline of Ricardian economics”, “Malthus’ model of general
gluts”, the “corn laws”, and also a few articles on Sismondi.
Besides those three communities (accounting together for 60.17% of the articles for
the first decade of HOPE), the algorithm detects a smaller (38-article) community including
work on macroeconomics by authors like D. Patinkin, O. Steiger and W. Salant, another
one containing work on A. Smith (32 articles) by, namely, F. Petrella, R. Meek and S.
Hollander, and then a third one (22 articles) on “Marxian topics”. These three communities
are further discussed below together with similar “research fronts” for HOPE’s second
decade.
Articles in HOPE Volumes 11-20
Table 3: Articles in HOPE Volumes 11-20 (1979-1988)
Communities Title-words References
23.51% (75) Political (5), Classical (5), Value (4), Schumpeter (4), Malthus (4), Social (4), Mathematical (3), Austrian (3)
Schumpeter (92), Smith (58), Mill (41), Petty (36), Walras (33), Marx (30), Hayek (28), Malthus (26), Marshall (25), Cunningham (25), Stigler (24), Tooke (23), Blaug (23), Frisch (22), Wicksell (20), Robbins (19), Hollander (19), Ekelund (18), Coats (18), Menger (17), Keynes (17), Edgeworth (17)
20.38% (65) Keynes (15), Monetary (10), Harrod (4), Growth (4), General
Keynes (220), Patinkin (65), Davis (63), Ohlin (55), Hicks (53), Friedman (45), Warburton (40), Harrod
17
(4), Uncertainty (3), Monetarism (3), Keynesian (3), Effective (3), Demand (3), Development (3)
(34), Hansen (33), Dalton (31), Robinson (29), Myrdal (26), Currie (22), Marshall (21), Lindahl (19), Coats (18), Steiger (17), Hutchison (17)
15.67% (50)
Marx (21), Capital (7), Value (6), Political (6), Economy (6), Labor (4), Engels (4), Marx’s (3), Marxist (3), Marxian (3), Malthus (3), Critique (3), Capitalism (3)
Marx (342), Engels (50), Turgot (34), Meek (31), Sweezy (26), Smith (25), Clark (23), Hegel (22), Ricardo (21), Darwin (18), Mill (16)
13.17% (42)
Malthus (7), Smith (6), Digression (6), Money (5), Political (4), Torrens (3), Sismondi (3), Ricardo (3), McCulloch (3)
Smith (57), Barton (36), Ricardo (35), Malthus (35), McCulloch (34), Torrens (26), Mill (25),Viner (15)
11.91% (38) Hayek (4), Growth (3), Classical (3)
Hayek (73), Blaug (26), Stigler (22), Lakatos (22), Sargent (20), Knight (20), Lucas (19), Locke (17), Hutchinson (17), Hicks (17), Samuelson (16), Friedman (16)
10.97% (35)
Veblen (8), Wicksell (7), Marshall (5), Equation (5), Walras (4), Missing (4), Owners (3), Managers (3), Industry (3), Goods (3), Control (3)
Veblen (51), Marshall (51), Walras (50), Jaffe (37), Wicksell (28), Edgeworth (22), Pigou (20), Hicks (18), Jevons (16)
4.39% (14) Mill (3), Talmudic (2), Market (2), Free (2), Capitalist (2)
Hobson (17), Taylor (10), Plato (9), Jefferson (8)
TOTAL: 100% (319 of 331)
Marx (23), Political (16), Keynes (15), Malthus (14), Value (13), Monetary (13), Classical (13), Smith (12), Growth (12), Capital (11), Money (10)
Marx (398), Keynes (260), Smith (170), Schumpeter (124), Hayek (123), Marshall (114), Hicks (108), Mill (101), Walras (86), Ricardo (81), Malthus (78), Davis (78), Blaug (77), Patinkin (73), Samuelson (72), Stigler (69), Friedman (66), Wicksell (62), Veblen (62), Coats (62)
Table 3 summarizes the article-network for the second decade of HOPE, featuring Karl
Marx as (by far) the most frequently cited author (see bottom row). As for the previous
decade, work by J. Schumpeter, M. Blaug and G. Stigler remain among the most cited
secondary sources (unlike J. Viner and J. Spengler, who are not there this decade).
Considering the different communities, one may point out that while “marginalism”
disappears from the most frequently used title-words, there is now a quite large and “loose”
(75-article) community including a variety of topics and authors with low frequencies (i.e.
not really a “research front” in Derek Price’s sense, with no authors appearing more than
18
twice in that large community). In contrast, the second (65-article) community appears
quite clearly delineated. It includes work on macroeconomic topics and remains remarkably
similar to the one detected for the previous decade. It shows a mix of work on
macroeconomic theory (mostly Keynes’) by authors like D. Patinkin, O. Steiger and B.
Ohlin, together with some other writings on “policy-making and government” by, namely,
A.W. Coats and W. Barber. Detected throughout the whole 50-year period, this “invisible
college” (especially Keynes’) is further discussed below in this same Section.
The third community (50 articles) contains virtually all (86%) references to K. Marx
and F. Engels, appearing in publications by namely J. King, M. Wolfson, Z. Orzech, M.
Perelman, and J. Henderson. Examples for the “best connected” topics in this front are
“Ricardian socialists”, “Marx and Malthus”, “accumulation”, and the “labor theory of
value”. Although detected for the whole 50-year period, work on Marx and Engels reaches
a clear “peak” during this second decade of HOPE.
The fourth (42-article) community includes work on A. Smith, T. Malthus, D.
Ricardo and other classical economists (i.e. those in Table 3) by, namely, J. Pullen, S.
Rashid, J. Ahiakpor, W. Grampp, and D. O’Brien & A. Darnell. This group is also similar
to the front working on classical political economy during the first decade of HOPE, now
including several writings on topics related to “Torrens, McCulloch and the digression of
Sismondi”, “classical monetary theory”, and “Malthus’ theology”.
Besides the four fronts just discussed, the algorithm also detects two “new” fronts
for this second decade. The first one (38 articles) includes work by authors like D. Levy, B.
Caldwell, R. Garrison and W. Hands, the two “HOPE at 10” surveys (Coats’ and De
Marchi & Lodewijks’) and a “theory of the history of economics” (by C. Goodwin). This
19
front mixes work on the historiography/methodology of economics with studies on Hayek
and Austrian economics, which were not prominent during the first decade of HOPE. The
second “new” community (35 articles), remains somehow connected to the first one on
“marginalism” of the first decade. However, this time work on marginalists like A.
Marshall, L. Walras and F. Edgeworth, appears mixed with work on T. Veblen’s
institutionalism (by, namely, M. Rutherford and J. Biddle), and also K. Wicksell (by L.
Samuelson)13.
Articles in HOPE Volumes 21-30
Table 4: Articles in HOPE Volumes 21-30 (1989-1998)
Communities Title-words References
25.93% (91)
Mill (9), Monetary (6), Money (5), Classical (5), Capital (5), Value (5), Stuart (5), Political (4), North (4), Free (4), Equilibrium (4), Trade (3), Scientific (3), Science (3), Schumpeter (3), Methodology (3), Law (3), Marx (3), Disequilibrium (3), Cassel (3), Capital (3)
Schumpeter (132), Mill (92), Blaug (51), Smith (51), Samuelson (45), Hicks (44), Hollander (35), Marx (29), Ekelund (26), Mirowski (24), Stigler (23), Ricardo (22), Menger (22), Hayek (21), Cassel (21), Walras (20), Hume (19), Negishi (17), Keynes (17), Edgeworth (17), Cournot (17), Arrow (17)
25.93% (91)
Keynes (25), Monetary (6), Wicksell (5), Keynesian (5), Hayek (5), General (5), Cycle (4), Money (4), Controversy (4), Unemployment (3), Trade (3), Robertson (3), Policy (3), Pigou (3), Phillips (3), Keynes’ (3), Inflation (3), Hicks (3), Harrod (3), Equilibrium (3), Dynamic (3), Cost (3), Business (3), Patinkin (3), Capital (3)
Keynes (301), Wicksell (110), Hayek (99), Friedman (79), Robinson (71), Patinkin (62), Hicks (55), Samuelson (53), Harrod (52), Young (47), Kalecki (46), Robertson (44), Hansen (42), Schumpeter (37), Pigou (31), Hawtrey (30)
23.08% (81) Adam Smith (25), Political (10), Malthus (10), Growth (6), Ricardo (5), Social (4), Smith’s (4), Classical (4), Ricardian (4),
Smith (262), Malthus (105), Hollander (60), Hume (54), Ricardo (50), Turgot (34), Marx (29), Winch (28), Waterman (28), Meek
13 Work on T. Veblen and W.C. Mitchell (by, namely A. Hirsch and C. Leathers)
previously clustered into the “A. Smith” front.
20
Public (4),Supply (3), National (3), Justice (3), Ethics (3), Development (3), Choice (3)
(28), Locke (28), Mill (25), Viner (23), Blaug (23), Evensky (22), Skinner (21), Young (20)
13.96% (49) Marshall (10), Jevons (5), Demand (5), Edgeworth (3)
Marshall (114), Edgeworth (53), Jevons (45), Pigou (33), Stigler (29), Mitchell (26), Menger (22), Keynes (22), Hobson (21), Coase (21), Smith (18), Clark (17), Hicks (15)
8.55% (30) Marx (13), Ricardian (7), Marxian (4), Capital (4), Labor (3)
Marx (105), Bauer (19), Amoroso (16), Ricardo (28), Amoroso (16), Wolfson (13), Sweezy (13)
1.71% (6) Social-Security (3), Funding (3) Myers (8), Petersen (6), Feldstein (3)
0.85% (3) Two Articles on Spanish mercantilism and one on Physiocracy in Spain
Campomanes (10), Llombart (4), Quesnay (3)
TOTAL: 100% (351 of 360)
Adam Smith (29), Keynes (26), Political (17), Marx (17), Monetary (14), Capital (14), Ricardian (13), Mill (13), Social (12), Money (12), Malthus (12), Post (11), Marshall (10)
Keynes (351), Smith (345), Schumpeter (197), Marx (175), Marshall (156), Mill (154), Samuelson (134), Hayek (132), Wicksell (130), Malthus (121), Hicks (120), Blaug (111), Hollander (107), Friedman (99), Robinson (90), Ricardo (88), Stigler (82), Hume (78), Edgeworth (73)
Table 4 shows how besides Schumpeter, Blaug and Stigler, S. Hollander also appears
among the most frequently cited “secondary authors” for the third decade of HOPE. As for
the primary sources, J.M. Keynes and A. Smith become (and remain) the most prominent
during this decade.
There are two large (91-article) communities. The first one includes work on mostly
“money”, “cycles” and “classical political economy”, written by authors the “best
connected” of which are M. Perlman, E. Forget, F. Cesarano and N. Skaggs. This front
includes work on J. Steuart, J.S. Mill, J. Law, D. Ricardo and T. Malthus, together with
some other on trade and liberalism. The other largest front (which grows relatively bigger
as time passes) includes 91 articles on (almost exclusively) macroeconomic topics by
authors like P. Davidson, P. Mizen & J. Presley, R. Leeson, A. Cottrell, K. Hoover and B.
Caldwell. This front is quite clearly dominated by work on Keynes, namely, “Patinkin’s
21
reinterpretation of Keynes”, “Keynes vs. Hayek” and, in general, relationships between
Keynes and other economists (i.e. those listed in Table 4, second row).
Besides those two large fronts, there are three, which appear similar to those
detected for previous decades. The first of these (81 articles), includes work on classical
political economy (Smith, Ricardo and Malthus, mostly) by, namely, S. Hollander, J.
Young, A. Waterman, J. Evensky and S. Rashid. The second one includes 49 articles
studying a “mix” of marginalism (that of A. Marshall, W.S. Jevons and F. Edgeworth,
mostly) with “topics on institutions” (remember that for the previous decade, marginalism
mixed with Veblenian topics). Here again, however, the low author-frequencies (i.e. just
four authors appearing more than once), suggest this is not really a “research front” in
Derek Price’s sense. There is also a third and smaller (30-article) front on K. Marx and F.
Engels, including work by authors such as J. King, Z. Orzech, M. Wolfson and M.
Perelman (like for the previous decade, although declining in size as pointed out earlier).
Other than those three, the algorithm detects two smaller communities including six and
three articles each one.
Articles in HOPE Volumes 31-40
Table 5: Articles in HOPE Volumes 31-40 (1999-2008)
Communities Title-words References
25.87% (82)
Keynes (16), Multiplier (10), Model (5), Keynesian (5), Business (5), Monetary (4), Friedman (4), Cycle (4), Wicksell (3), Unemployment (3), Samuelson’s (3), National (3), Money (3), Keynes’ (3), Interest (3), Hayek (3), Hawtrey (3), Harrod (3), Estimates (3), Accelerator (3)
Keynes (392), Friedman (109), Patinkin (98), Wicksell (89), Harrod (86), Hicks (68), Mitchell (61), Fisher (56), Samuelson (51), Robertson (48), Moggridge (40), Kahn (39), Hayek (38), Haberler (37), Tidskrift (36), Hansen (36), Clark (36)
22
19.24% (61) Political (8), Comparative (5), Pareto (4), Value (3), Utility (3), Policy (3), German (3), Cost (3)
Pareto (81), Jevons (65), Schumpeter (60), Schmoller (47), Samuelson (43), Locke (42), Smith (41), Hicks (37)
14.51 (46)
Ricardo (10), Classical (10), Malthus (9), Political (8), School (4), Surplus (3), Sraffian (3), Sraffa (3), Ricardo’s (3), Free (3), Debate (3), Banking (3)
Quesnay (63), Ricardo (62), Malthus (59), Behrens (51), Marx (45), Sraffa (40), Say (39), Kurz (28), Samuelson (27), Smith (25), Hollander (25), Blaug (23), Mirabeau (22), Mill (22), Garegnani (22)
14.2% (45) Smith (20), Hume (6), Money (4), Market (4), Religion (3), Psychology (3), Monetary (3)
Smith (159), Hume (91), Ruskin (40), Skinner (28), Pinto (27), Turgot (24), Locke (22), Petty (21)
11.67% (37) Hayek (6), Knight (5), Methodological (3), Debate (3), Cournot (3), Cost (3), Case (3), Arts (3)
Hayek (138), Knight (93), Neurath (42), Ekelund (34), Robbins (32), Dupuit (32), Mises (26), Keynes (26), Pigou (25), Menger (24)
10.73% (34) Rational (5), Science (3), Nineteenth (3), Financial (3)
Simon (71), Edgeworth (31), Mirowski (29), Sent (26), Jovanovic (26), Muth (24), Aumann (20), Morgan (16), Tversky (15), Smith (15), Arrow (15), Mills (14), Kahneman (14)
3.79% (12) 12 Articles mostly on Cambridge (3), W.T. Thornton (3), Tariffs (3)
Marshall (30), Thornton (23), Fawcett (13)
TOTAL: 100% (317 of 328)
Smith (23), Political (20), Keynes (18), Classical (12), School (11), Ricardo (10), Multiplier (10), Money (10), Monetary (10)
Keynes (467), Smith (257), Hayek (202), Samuelson (139), Friedman (132), Hicks (123), Wicksell (122), Marshall (114), Knight (108), Schumpeter (107), Mill (105), Hume (105), Patinkin (103), Harrod (97), Stigler (92), Pareto (92), Jevons (91), Ricardo (85), Edgeworth (84), Marx (82), Simon (81), Fisher (81)
For HOPE Volumes 31-40 (Table 5), the network includes four fronts similar to those
previously found on “Keynes” (82 articles by, namely, M. Boianovsky, R. Kent, H.-M.
Trautwein, C. Siven, D. Moggridge and M. Marcuzzo), “marginalism/institutionalism” (61
articles by, namely, C. Weber, R. Ruffin and M. Thornton), “classical political economy”
(46 articles by, namely, H. Kurz, S. Hollander, N. Salvadori, M. Blaug and C. Depoortere)
and “A. Smith and utilitarianism” (45 articles by, namely, S. Medema, M. Paganelli, C.
Wennerlind, A. Witzum, J. Young, G. Hueckel and G. Davis). Other than those, there is
23
also a Hayek/Knight/Dupuit (37-article) community, a new “research front” (34 articles)
working on topics related to decision theory, behavioral economics and finance, and a small
12-article community featuring topics related to Cambridge (UK), W.T. Thornton, and
tariffs.
Among the 37 articles including work on F. Hayek, F. Knight and J. Dupuit, one
finds topics like “emigration and the decline of the Austrian School”, “F. Knight and the
Austrians”, “Hayek on Mill”, some work on J. Dupuit, industrial organization and game
theory, and also a couple of articles on L. Robbins (by S. Howson). Work on Hayek (the
third most frequently cited primary source this decade), also clusters into the
macroeconomics/Keynes community (i.e. like for the previous decade). The “best
connected” authors in this 37-article front are S. Howson, R. Ekelund, N. Giocoli, R.
Emmett, H. Klausinger, R. Marchionatti, and P. Boettke & K. Vaughn. As for the 34
articles clustered in the “new” front on “decision theory and finance”, they are written by,
namely, E.-M. Sent, P. Fontaine, P. Mirowski, and F. Jovanovic, and deal with topics like
“economics and psychology”, the “homo-oeconomicus”, “bounded rationality”, “rational
expectations” and “random walks”.
Articles in HOPE Volumes 41-50
Table 6: Articles in HOPE Volumes 41-50 (2009-2018)
Communities Title-words References
23.72% (60) Policy (4), United-States (3), Samuelson (3), Human (3), Equilibrium (3)
Samuelson (104), Furtado (66), Arrow (53), Marschack (52), Weintraub (49), Mirowski (46), Backhouse (42), Phillips (40), Friedman (39), Simon (38), Wilson (37), Lucas (32), Smith (27), Pareto (27), Domar (27), Becker (27), Boianovsky (25)
24
18.97% (48)
Smith (5), Smith’s (5), Value (4), Trade (3), Political (3), Nations (3), Malthus (3), Invisible Hand (3),Corn (3)
Smith (126), Malthus (54), Blaug (49), Ricardo (43), Mill (33), Hollander (28), Kurz (27), Garegnani (24), Schumpeter (23), Marshall (18)
17.39% (44)
Monetary (6), Keynesian (5), Money (4), Trade (3), Keynes (3), Competition (3), Chicago (3), Cambridge (3)
Keynes (208), Pigou (64), Marshall (57), Robinson (43), Patinkin (39), Hayek (33), Kahn (32), Schumpeter (30), Triffin (26), Friedman (26), Robertson (24), Viner (23), Clower (23), Pantaleoni (21), Laidler (21), Chamberlin (21), Heckscher (20)
15.42% (39)
Smith (4), Money (4), English (4), Translation (3), Political (3), Nineteenth (3), Eighteenth (3), Moral (3), Mises (3), Montaigne (3)
Smith (96), Ruskin (40), Marx (18), Malinowski (15), Locke (15), Hume (13), Berry (13), Schumpeter (12), Langholm (12), Guicciardini (12)
12.25% (31) Communities (4), Public (3), Policy (3)
Buchanan (80), Coase (36), Commons (34), Carver (31), Veblen (29), Musgrave (27), Medema (25), Knight (24), Ely (22), Samuels (21), Samuelson (19), Seligman (18)
6.32% (16) Utility (3), Jevons’ (3), Walras (2), Political (2), Mill (2), Dupuit (2)
Jevons (51), Mill (41), Wallace (31), White (19), Edgeworth (18), Walras (16), Marshall (15), Sidgwick (13), Wicksell (9)
5.93% (15) Vienna (2), Social (2), Menger (2), Econometrics (2), Community (2)
Menger (85), Hayek (58), Frisch (39), Mayer (32), Wald (23), Fisher (21), Morgenstern (19), Edgeworth (18), Wicksell (16), Neurath (16), Bjerkholt (16), Mises (15), Koopmans (15)
TOTAL: 100% (253 of 271)
Political (12), Policy (10), Money (10), Smith (9), Social (8), Monetary (8), Value (7), Trade (7), Smith’s (7), Science (6), Natural (6), Market (6)
Smith (278), Keynes (242), Samuelson (146), Hayek (125), Marshall (109), Menger (97), Buchanan (91), Schumpeter (90), Friedman (80), Fisher (79), Blaug (79), Pigou (77), Arrow (75), Backhouse (72), Furtado (70), Jevons (66), Weintraub (64), Robinson (64), Simon (63), Mirowski (60), Malthus (56), Ricardo (54), Marschak (54), Wilson (52), Solow (52), Marx (51), Coase (51), Frisch (50), Edgeworth (50), Viner (49), Hicks (49)
For the last decade (Table 6), the finding algorithm detects seven communities. Besides the
“usual” front including work on “macroeconomics and Keynes” (44 articles, i.e. a front
decreasing relatively for the first time during the five decades), there is a large (60-article)
community including work on both “macroeconomics and recent economics”. Animated
by, namely, R. Van Horn, T. Düppe, M. Boianovsky, R. Weintraub, P. Fontaine, P. Duarte,
25
F. Claveau, B. Cherrier and P. Mehrling, that “front” includes work on “Samuelson and
mathematical economics”, “growth models”, “rational expectations”, and “contemporary
historiography of economics”.
Work on A. Smith and classical political economy clusters (again) into two different
communities. The first one (48 articles), includes work by, namely, N. Salvadori & R.
Signiorino, T. Peach, N. Rieucau, F. Meacci, M. Blaug, A. Brewer, and A. Witzum, on
topics like “measuring the happiness of nations”, “the classical notion of competition”, the
“corn laws”, or the “uses and abuses of A. Smith”. The second one (39 articles), is more
specifically focused on morality/ethics in classical political economy, and is animated by,
namely, M. Paganelli, C. Berry, L. Breban & J. Dellemotte, T. Des Roches and N. Sigot.
Finally, there is a “new” (31-article) front appearing this last decade, on topics
related to “J. Buchanan”, “public choice theory”, “market failure”, and the “progressive
era”. This community includes work by L. Fiorito, S. Medema, A. Marciano, T. Leonard,
E. Forget & C. Goodwin, and M. Desmarais-Tremblay. Other than that, the algorithm
detects two smaller communities on topics related to “marginalism and utility theory” (16
articles by, namely, R. Ekelund & R. Hebert, M Boianovsky, P. Lloyd, I. Moscati and M.
De Vroey), and “Vienna and econometrics” (15 articles by, namely, R. Leonard, T. Düppe
& R. Weintraub, J. Aldrich, M. Boumans, and O. Bjerkholt & A. Dupont).
HOPE Supplements, book reviews and other documents
HOPE Supplements in Volumes 22-50 (1990-2018)
As pointed out earlier, supplements are the product of HOPE Conferences, the objective of
which is “to advance the cutting edge of research in the history of economics”
26
(http://hope.econ.duke.edu). While one would expect our algorithm to work toward
detecting different communities for each one of the 29 HOPE Conferences organized since
1990, Table 7 (listing all titles, editors, and authors appearing at least three times) remains
arguably the ideal classification of HOPE Supplements by “invisible colleges” (i.e.
recurring research fronts). In a sense, the authors listed in Table 7 constitute an “invisible
college” in precisely the terms put forward by Derek Price. For these groups to happen, he
claimed, “there exists a sort of commuting circuit of institutions […] so that over an
interval of a few years everybody who is anybody has worked with everybody else in the
same category” (Price 1963, p. 75). These colleges are supposed to “effectively solve a
communication crisis by reducing a large group to a small select one of the maximum size
that can be handled by interpersonal relationships” (ibid., p. 76).
Table 7: List of Supplements, including titles, editors and authors appearing more than
twice (1990-2018)
Year Title Editor(s)/Authors involved in at least three Supplements
1990 Carl Menger and his Legacy in Economics B. Caldwell/
1991 Economics and National Security C. Goodwin/S. Lowry, W. Barber, J. Biddle, N. De Marchi, P. Mirowski, R. Leonard
1992 Toward a History of Game Theory R. Weintraub/R. Dimand, R. Leonard, P. Mirowski
1993 Non-Natural Social Science N. De Marchi/M. Schabas, W. Hands, M. Boumans, R. Leonard, A. Coats, R. Weintraub, P. Mirowski
1994 Higgling N. De Marchi, M. Morgan/S. Lowry, M. Schabas, E. Forget, M. Rutherford, R. Emmett, P. Mirowski, R. Leonard
1995 New Perspectives on Keynes A. Cottrell, M. Lawlor/J. Davis, P. Groenewegen, A.W. Coats, K. Hoover, W. Darity, R. Dimand
1996 The Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics
A.W. Coats/W. Barber, R. Backhouse, P. Groenewegen, A. Ikeo
27
1997 New Economics and Its History J. Davis/P. Mirowski, E. Sent, M. Boumans, S. Lowry, S. Medema, R. Emmett
1998 From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism
M. Morgan, M. Rutherford/ B. Bateman, C. Goodwin, R. Backhouse, J. Biddle, R. Emmett, S. Medema, R. Weintraub, P. Mirowski, W. Hands
1999 Economic Engagements with Art N. De Marchi/H. Maas, C. Goodwin, W. Barber, S. Medema, R. Leonard
2000 Toward a History of Applied Economics
R. Backhouse, J. Biddle/J. Klein, W. Young, T. Leonard, R. Dimand, P. Teixeira, S. Medema, S. Meardon
2001 The Age of Economic Measurement
J. Klein, M. Morgan/B. Bateman, J. Klein, K. Hoover, M. Morgan, H. Maas, R. Weintraub, M. Boumans, S. Banzhaf
2002 The Future of the History of Economics
R. Weintraub/B. Bateman, J. Davis, R. Backhouse, A. Ikeo, C. Goodwin, S. Medema, M. Schabas, E. Forget, R. Emmett, S. Meardon, EM. Sent, P. Boettke, P. Mirowski,
2003 Oeconomies in the Age of Newton M. Schabas, N. De Marchi/H. Maas, E. Forget, S. Lowry
2004 The IS-LM Model M. De Vroey, K. Hoover/W. Young, W. Darity Jr., R. Dimand, R. Backhouse, D. Colander, M. Boianovsky
2005 The Role of Government in the History of Economic Thought
S. Medema/P. Boettke, S. Meardon, B. Bateman, T. Leonard, M. Rutherford, D. Colander, W. Young, R. Backhouse, A. Marciano
2006 Agreement on Demand P. Mirowski, W. Hands/S. Banzhaf, EM. Sent
2007 Economists’ Lives R. Weintraub, E. Forget/R. Backhouse, R. Dimand, T. Mata, R. Emmett, R. Leonard, C. Goodwin, P. Groenewegen, R. Weintraub
2008 Keeping Faith, Losing Faith B. Bateman, S. Banzhaf/P. Teixeira, H. Maas, S. Medema, R. Backhouse, S. Meardon, R. Emmett
2009 Robert Solow and the Development of Growth Economics
M. Boianovsky, K. Hoover/R. Dimand, M. Boumans, W. Darity, P. Duarte, T. Mata
2010 The Unsocial Social Science? R. Backhouse, P. Fontaine/T. Mata, R. Emmett
2011 Histories on Econometrics M. Morgan/M. Boumans, R. Dimand, A. Ikeo, J. Biddle
2012 Observing the Economy H. Maas, M. Morgan/M. Boumans, M. Rutherford, C. Goodwin, P. Duarte, K. Hoover
2013 The Economist as Public Intellectual
T. Mata, S. Medema/R. Dimand, R. Backhouse, B. Bateman, C. Goodwin, P. Boettke, W. Young, A. Marciano, P. Mirowski
2014 MIT and the Transformation of American Economics
R. Weintraub/R. Backhouse, P. Duarte, A. Svorencik, P. Teixeira, M. Boianovsky, K. Hoover, R. Backhouse, H. Maas, W. Darity, S. Meardon
2015 Market Failure in Context A. Marciano, S. Medema/T. Leonard, M. Rutherford, R. Backhouse, B. Bateman, D. Colander
28
2016 Economizing Mind, 1870–2015 M. Bianchi, N. De Marchi/H. Maas, C. Goodwin, J. Klein, A. Svorencik
2017 The Age of the Applied Economist R. Backhouse, B. Cherrier/J. Biddle, S. Banzhaf, A. Svorencik
2018 The Political Economy of Development Economics
M. Alacevich, M. Boianovsky/S. Meardon, M. Morgan, M. Boumans, N. De Marchi, R. Leonard
Of the 285 authors advancing the “cutting edge of research in the history of economics”
(i.e. all those participating in Supplements), 80 appear more than once, 39 more than twice
(those in Table 7), and 15 over 5 times. Interestingly (although not surprisingly), the ten
most frequently cited first authors in all HOPE Supplements are different from the ten most
cited overall in HOPE (above, Figure 3). There is, yes, an overlap of four authors in these
two lists (J.M. Keynes, P. Samuelson, M. Friedman and J. Hicks), but citations in
Supplements appear less concentrated, with the ten most cited (frequencies in brackets)
being P. Samuelson (216), P. Mirowski (203), R. Solow (159), L. Robbins (146), J.M.
Keynes (135), M. Friedman (121), M. Morgan (98), J. Hicks (96), J. Tobin (95) and W.
Hamilton (90 citations, 86 of them by M. Rutherford alone). Supplements with few
recurring authors (or none, like the first one edited by B. Caldwell), are more likely to also
include “primary authors”, and specialists coming from other disciplines (e.g. historians of
science, sociologists)
Book Reviews and “other” documents
Table 8 lists the most frequent authors and title-words of all 1,027 HOPE book reviews
since they started in 1974 (by decades). The small number of references in these documents
(2,035 in total) makes it impracticable to classify them by fronts. However, the most
frequent title-words reveal patterns, which seem similar (in a sense) to the most general
29
trends found in HOPE: a strong presence of K. Marx during the second decade, and A.
Smith and J.M. Keynes becoming the most frequently treated/cited during the last decades.
The editors of the HOPE book reviews during their 45-year period have been S.T. Lowry
(1974-1997), D.E. Moggridge (1998-2018), and S. Medema (2018). Their role is important
as they have been responsible of choosing which books to review and by whom, as well as
of “refereeing” the book reviews.
Table 8: Book reviews by decades, including title-words and authors last-names
Decade Title-words Authors
1969-1978 (79)
Smith (10), Social (9), Marx (5), American (5), Classical, Analysis (4), Spanish (3), Revolution (3), Philosophy (3), Nature (3), Mill (3), Man (3), Ideas (3), British (3), Ancient (3), America (3)
Elliot (4), Tiryakian (3), Lowry (3), Gordon (3), Wiles (2), Miller (2), McNulty (2), Leathers (2), Horowitz (2), Hirsch (2), Fusfeld (2), Coats (2), Campbell (2)
1979-1988 (267)
Political (25), Social (16), Keynes (16), Marx (13), Italian (13), Capitalism (11), French (10), Classical (10), Smith (9), Science (8), Policy (8), Modern (8), Marxian (8) American (8), Politics (7), Nature (7), German (7)
Brandis (10), Coats (7), Walker (6), Samuels (6), Balinky (6), Rashid (5), Thweatt (4), Routh (4), Karsten (4), Hebert (4), Elliot (4), Wulwick (3), Worland (3), Winfrey (3), Wiles (3), Thomson (3), Rutherford (3), Ruccio (3), Perlman (3), Langholm (3), Kuhn (3), Koot (3), Hyse (3), Hill (3), Gramm (3), Gordon (3), Gilbert (3), Dugger (3), Darity (3), Cramer (3), Clarck (3), Bronfenbrenner (3), Brenner (3), Boland (3)
1989-1998 (238)
Political (24), Keynes (16), Classical (12), Smith (11), Philosophy (10), Science (9), Modern (9), Capitalism (9), Walras (7), Value (7), Social (7), Money (7), Monetary (7), Market (7), Growth (7)
Brandis (10), Staley (8), Pack (7), Young (6), Lowry (6), Samuels (5), Rashid (5), Bateman (5), Walker (4), Skaggs (4), Pressman (4), Maneschi (4), Gilbert (4), Dimand (4), Davis (4), Clark (4), Wible (3), Mirowski (3), Henderson (3), Harcourt (3), Hammond (3), Elliott (3), Degregori (3), Bonfenbrenner (3), Brems (3)
1999-2008 (258)
Smith (16), Political (15), Money (15), Trade (11), Modern (11), Science (9), Life (9), Classical (9), Social (8), Selected (8), Public (8), Monetary (8), International (8), Critical (8), Perspective (7), Market (7), Intellectual (7), Institutions (7), Capital (7)
Barber (9), Howson (8), Coats (7), Bateman (7), Young (6), Redman (6), Backhouse (6), Weintraub (5), Pearson (5), Laidler (5), Kleer (5), Dimand (5), Tribe (4), Rutherford (4), O’Brien (4), Moss (4), Eltis (4), Colander (4), Brewer (4), Blaug (4), Sent (3), Schabas (3), Ortmann (3), Maas (3), Lipkes (3), King (3), Hutchison (3), Goodhart (3), Dostaler (3)
30
2009-2018 (185)
Political (20), Social (13), Smith (13), Life (10), Keynes (8), Science (7), American (7), School (6), Hayek (6), Companion (6), Wealth (5), Modern (5), Marx (5), Macroeconomics (5), Intellectual (5), Essays (5)
Howson (14), Bateman (8), Backhouse (8), Tribe (6), Rutherford (6), Weintraub (5), Waterman (5), O’Brien (5), Laidler (5), Colander (5), Emmett (4), Dimand (4), Collard (4), Brewer (4), Young (3), Roncaglia (3), Reisman (3), Medema (3), Kleer (3), King (3), Hollander (3), Hodgson (3), Cohen (3), Barber (3)
All (1027)
Smith (54), Social (53), Keynes (46), Classical (36), Science (35), Modern (34), Money (31), American (27), Marx (26); Philosophy (25), Monetary (23), Capitalism (23), Wealth (22), French (21), Politics (20), Trade (19), Policy (19), Italian (19), Revolution (18), Nature (18), Market (18), Growth (18), Schumpeter (17), German (17)
Howson (22), Brandis (22), Bateman (22), Young (17), Coats (17), Rutherford (15), Samuels (14), Rashid (14), Barber (14), Backhouse (14), Walker (13), Dimand (13), Colander (13), Tribe (12), Lowry (12), Elliott (11), Weintraub (10), Staley (10), Laidler (10), Pack (9), O’Brien (9), Gilbert (9), Maneschi (8), Kleer (8), Brewer (8), Gordon (7), Clark (7), Bronfenbrenner (7), Skaggs (6), Redman (6), Moss (6), Mirowski (6), Leathers (6), King (6), Karsten (6), Hollander (6), Hebert (6), Balinky (6)
Finally, the 67 “other” documents consist, mainly, of 59 letters and notes published
between 1969 and 1994 (the rest are just corrections/additions). Among all 13 letters, there
are, namely, three by D. Ricardo (1991), three more “in defense of Senior’s last hour and
25 minutes” (1989, by J. Pullen and J. De Long), and then two on the “origins of balanced-
budget-multiplier theorem” (1977, by H. Somers and W. Salant). The 46 notes include 14
of them on “breaking away, history of economics as history of science” (1992), three on
“Keynes and the Keynesian cross” (1989), and two each on “Aristotle as welfare
economist” (1986) and the “progress of the econometric movement” (1975).
Discussion
This survey just gave a general description of all 3,084 documents published in HOPE
Volumes 1-50. Concise enough to fit an 8,000-word format, it relied on a few bibliometric
procedures and concepts – especially Derek Price’s ideas of “research fronts” and “invisible
colleges” – to make such synthetic work possible.
31
For the “articles”, it showed how prominent work on both marginalism and K. Marx
& F. Engels were during the first and second decades of HOPE, respectively. That
prominence can be (at least partly) explained by the centennials of both the marginalist
revolution (1870s-1970s) and K. Marx’s death (1883-1983). While work on Keynesian
macroeconomics grew steadily (at least in relative terms) during HOPE’s third and fourth
decades, the last decade shows some differentiation regarding the historiography of
macroeconomics. Part of it clustering together with the “historiography of recent
economics” (the emergence of which shows quite clearly in HOPE), its development
mirrors, somehow, the division of A. Smith’s historiography into two different fronts: a
“traditional” one including work on A. Smith and some other classical political economists,
and a “new” front more focused on morality/ethics. HOPE Supplements, book reviews and
“other” documents were given “reduced” treatment, consistent with their page-space in the
journal. Supplements were presented so as to further describe Derek Price’s concept of
“invisible college”, and book reviews in their connection to the most general trends in
HOPE.
The scope of this survey – limited to explaining just how (not why) the different
topic, citations and authors show in HOPE whenever they do – was deliberately restricted
given the lack of citation indexes for other publications (i.e. books and articles) by
historians of economics. Could we move deeper into quantitatively exploring the
historiography of economics? Yes, provided projects like the HES New Initiatives proposal
mentioned earlier in this survey, continue to develop this kind of resource. This may open
new ways, as the collection of economists’ papers archives has in the recent past.
32
References
Blondel, Vincent D., Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre.
2008. “Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks.” Journal of Statistical
Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008 (10): P10008.
Claveau, François, and Yves Gingras. 2016. “Macrodynamics of Economics: A
Bibliometric History.” History of Political Economy 48 (4): 551–92.
Claveau, François and Catherine Herfeld. 2018. “Network Analysis in the History of
Economics.” History of Political Economy 50 (3): 597-603.
Coats, A. W. 1969. “Research Priorities in the History of Economics.” History of Political
Economy 1 (1):9–18.
Coats, A.W. 1983. “The first decade of HOPE.” History of Political Economy 15 (3):303-
19.
De Marchi, Neil and John Lodewijks. 1983. “HOPE and the journal literature in the history
of economic thought.” History of Political Economy 15 (3):321-43.
Edwards, José, Yann Giraud and Christophe Schinckus (Eds.). 2018a. “Not Everything that
can be Counted Counts: Historiographic Reflections on Quantifying Economics.”
Journal of Economic Methodology, forthcoming.
Edwards, José, Yann Giraud and Christophe Schinckus. 2018b. “A quantitative turn in the
historiography of economics?” Journal of Economic Methodology, forthcoming.
Garfield, Eugene. 1955. “Citation Indexes for Science.” Science 122: 108–11.
Garfield, Eugene. 1963. “Citation Indexes in Sociological and Historical Research.”
American Documentation 14 (4): 289–91.
33
Garfield, E. 1964. “‘Science Citation Index’--A New Dimension in Indexing.” Science 144
(3619): 649–54.
Garfield, Eugene, and Robert K. Merton. 1986. “Foreword”, In Price, Derek, Little Science,
Big Science…and beyond”: vii–xiii.
Herfeld, Catherine and Malte Doehne. 2018. “Five Reasons for the Use of Network
Analysis in the History of Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology
Hood, William, and Concepción Wilson. 2001. “The Literature of Bibliometrics,
Scientometrics, and Informetrics.” Scientometrics 52 (2): 291–314.
Leydesdorff, Loet, Félix de Moya-Anegón, and Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote. 2010. “Journal
Maps on the Basis of Scopus Data: A Comparison with the Journal Citation Reports
of the ISI.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
61 (2): 352–69.
Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. George B. Pegram Lectures
1962. New York: Columbia University Press.
Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1965. “Networks of Scientific Papers.” Science 149 (3683): 510–
15.
Tukey, John W. 1962. “Keeping Research in Contact with the Literature: Citation Indices
and Beyond.” Journal of Chemical Documentation 2 (1): 34–37.