|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Florentin GLOETZL (Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria); Ernest AIGNER (Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria) |
| Abstract: | This paper scientometrically investigates concentration in economics between 1956and 2016 using a large-scale data set. It is revealed that economics is highly concentratedalong six dimensions: articles, journals, regions, institutions, authors, and paradigms. NorthAmerica accounts for half of all published articles and three quarters of all citations, while thetop twenty academic institutions reap a share of 42 percent of all citations. The top 100 authorsalone receive a share of 15 percent. Five journals account for 27.7 percent of all citations andonly 8 percent of all articles, and 3 percent of all citations may be attributed to heterodoxschools of thought. The overall Gini coefficient for the distribution of citations among articlesis 0.72. Generally, concentration is found to increase towards the top of the discipline and to behigher and more persistent on the level of citations than on the level of articles. Concentrationhas increased over the last few decades, with the strongest increases occurring already until the 1970s. |
| Keywords: | concentration, economics, scientometrics |
| Date: | 2017–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wiw:wiwiee:ieep15&r=sog |
| By: | Greta Falavigna (Ceris - Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth,Turin, Italy); Alessandro Manello (Ceris - Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth,Turin, Italy) |
| Abstract: | This paper presents an analysis of relationships between collaborations and scientific outputs of the Italian National Research Council (CNR). In order to evaluate collaborations among CNR institutes and between CNR institutes and universities, social network metrics have been applied with the aim to measure relationships and to understand if to cooperate allows researchers to publish higher quality outputs, improving their labour productivity. Research institutes are considered as nodes of the internal collaboration network, following the main aim of recent reform. Collaborations are stimulated not only by governments with the aim to have knowledge spillovers but they can improve citations and also their reputation. This last is extremely relevant for winning competitions, calls or grants. In this paper authors used data of scientific publications related to all institutes of CNR for the 2007 year and they ask to the question if researchers that publish more and better are those that collaborate more. |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:csc:cerisp:201418&r=sog |
| By: | Robert A. Margo |
| Abstract: | In the United States today the academic field of economic history is much closer to economics than it is to history in terms of professional behavior, a stylized fact that I call the “integration of economic history into economics”. I document this using two types of evidence – use of econometric language in articles appearing in academic journals of economic history and economics; and publication histories of successive cohorts of PhDs in the first decade since receiving the doctorate. Over time, economic history became more like economics in its use of econometrics and in the likelihood of scholars publishing in economics, as opposed to economic history journals. But the pace of change was slower in economic history than in labor economics, another sub-field of economics that underwent profound intellectual change in the 1950s and 1960s, and there was also a structural break evident for post-2000 PhD cohorts. To account for these features of the data, I sketch a simple, “overlapping generations” model of the academic labor market in which junior scholars have to convince senior scholars of the merits of their work in order to gain tenure. I argue that the early cliometricians – most notably, Robert Fogel and Douglass North – conceived of a scholarly “identity” for economic history that kept the field distinct from economics proper in various ways, until after 2000 when their influence had waned. |
| JEL: | A14 N01 |
| Date: | 2017–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:23538&r=sog |