Economic methodology: a bibliometric perspective

Abstract

Alexandre Truca , François Claveauab* & Olivier Santerreac a Université du Québec á Montréal – Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Montreal, Canadab Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, Université de Sherbrooke – Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Sherbrooke, Canadac Université Laval – Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Laval, CanadaAlexandre Truc is a postdoctral researcher at the CNRS (GREDEG-Nice) and an associate researcher at CIRST (UQAM-Montréal).François Claveau holds the Canada Research Chair in Applied Epistemology in the Department of Philosophy and Applied Ethics at Université de Sherbrooke. He is the director of the Bureau des Initiatives Numériques (BIN) and a regular member of CIRST.Olivier Santerre has a MA in Philosophy and now studies in Computer Science. He is a junior analyst at the Bureau des Initiatives Numériques (BIN), a research unit of CIRST.CONTACT François Claveau Francois.Claveau@USherbrooke.ca Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, Université de Sherbrooke – Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), 2500, boulevard de l'Université, Sherbrooke J1K 2R1, CanadaSupplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868774ABSTRACTUsing tools from social network analysis, we study citation patterns since the early 1990s in the two most important journals in economic methodology (aka philosophy of economics). We mostly focus on assessing four historical claims in the existing interpretive literature. In agreement with the literature, we find that (1) it is sensible to split the field along three dimensions (corresponding to action theory, ethics and philosophy of science) and that (2) the interest for general philosophical questions (known as Big M) has steadily declined. Contra the literature, we find that (3) there is no move away from heterodox economics in the main journals: no significant interest was present to begin with. Finally, we update the literature regarding an alleged move toward the study of mainstream pluralism: (4) although this direction describes well the early 2000s, the field in the 2010s is better characterized as mainly fascinated by behavioral economics.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.