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

1 jose.edwards@uai.cl

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.