HQPE and the journal literature in the history of economic thought

Transcription

1 History of Political Econoy 5: by Duke University Press HQPE and the journal literature in the history of econoic thought eil de Marchi and John Lodewijks I What sorts of changes should we expect to see following the advent of a new specialist journal? Will the flow of articles fro the related subdiscipline which appear in generalist journals diinish? Will the new journal act as a catalyst? One can easily iagine that papers of a ore specialist character will be attracted to the new journal, but these ay be diverted fro other journals, or represent a sort of latent supply, the work of discouraged scholars who have found no outlet in the generalist journals. It ay also turn out that, alost by tacit agreeent between authors and editors, the new journal coes to be allocated papers on narrowly defined or liited-interest topics, while the space previously given to such work in generalist journals reains available but is filled-appropriately-by papers still within the purview of the subdiscipline, but of wider than specialist appeal. These, or closely related issues, were atters of concern at the founding of History of Political Econoy, as Professor Coats recalls in his article in this issue on the beginnings of the journal. One of our purposes here is to exaine the nubers of acceptances by HOPE in its first decade, in relation to history-of-thought articles published in other econoics journals (both before and after the advent of HOPE) in an effort to extract soe of the inforation relevant to answering questions of the sort raised above. Looking back over HOPE S first ten years it also sees appropriate to ask what the character of subissions has been, in. ters of the interests and the approach to the writing of the history of econoic thought which they reflect. Has the ain interest, for exaple, been in Great Men and True Ideas; or have other concerns and criteria other than the foreshadowings of current verities of econoic theory significantly influenced the character of the papers subitted? This will occupy us in the next section. In Section we turn to soe Correspondence ay be addressed to Professor eil de Marchi, Dept. of Econoics, Duke University, Durha C

2 3 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) coparisons between HOPE S acceptances and articles in the history of econoic thought in other journals over the period 963 to 980. I The first anuscript subitted to HOPE arrived in Septeber 968. Fro that tie until August 979, a total of 070 had been received. Of this total, the first 50 percent arrived over the six years Septeber 968 through Septeber 974. The last 300 cae in less than three years. There was thus a odest quickening of pace. Through Septeber 974, the rejection rate was 6 percent. Subsequently, it clibed to roughly 70 percent. These rates are lower than in history and uch higher than in physics, but see to be about average for econoics and other social sciences. As a first cut at the data, we asked how far failiar categories capture the character of subissions for the period as a whole. Tables and show the results. Subissions directly on or about just six ajor figures (Sith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Marshall, and Keynes) account for alost two-fifths of the nuber of subissions covered by Table. It sees that the hagiographic ipulse, and certainly the Great Man tradition (in soe sense), reain very strong. It is equally clear-perhaps less surprising, albeit regrettable-that there is a persistent British orientation. If one excludes Marx and concentrates on British econoists in the categories pre-sithian, other classical, nineteenth-century British unorthodox, and the British neoclassicals in the category British late nineteenth century/austrian, then 38 percent of the subissions covered by Table deal with British econoists or econoics alone. Table reveals a healthy nuber of subissions devoted to Aerican econoists and shows at the sae tie that the apparent British bias is really part of an English-language bias. By any reasonable easure, the progenitors of econoics who did not write in English are under-represented, with the possible exception of the French. Turning to a closer analysis of the character of subissions, it should be noted, firstly, that the subset considered under Tables and represents slightly less than two-thirds of total subissions. The two largest reaining categories not ebraced are uch ore difficult to define satisfactorily.. See Haet Zuckeran and Robert K. Merton, Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and function of the referee syste, Minerva 9 (Jan. I97 I): 66-00, at Table, p. 76. There is soe evidence that rejection rates for core journals, such as the journal of a nationwide professional association, tend to be higher than average for journals in the field. Ibid For the Aerican Econoic Review, , the rejection rate was consistently 80 percent or above. Report of the Managing Editor, Aerican Econoic Review 70, no. (May 980): 455. An even higher rate is said to apply currently to the Econoic Journal.

3 de Marchi and Lodewijks * HOPE and journal literature 33 Table I. Subissions to HOPE by failiar subject category, Category uber Percentage Ancient Greek, Indian, Islaic, Taludic, Medieval econoists/econoics 36 Pre-Sithian 36 Sith 68 Other classical (ostly Ricardo, Malthus) 7 ineteenth-century British lesser knowns and unorthodox 50 M arx/m arx i s 94 British late nineteenth century/austrian 53 Other Europeans (see Table ) 07 Key nes/key nesian 49 U.S. econoists/econoics 78 Major (ainstrea) twentieth-century econoists 9 Institutional econoics/econoists Table. Papers subitted to HOPE dealing directly with econoists or their econoics, considered by subjects' national origin ations and nationals Author Total Austria Schupeter 6 0 France Walras Cournot Quesnay Gerany Great Britain Sith Keynes Ricardo Malthus Mars ha Italy Pare to 5 ' Russia

4 34 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) Table. Continued ations and nationals Author Total Sweden Wic ksell United States Knight Veblen Fisher J. B. Clark Percentage devoted to English language econoics/econoists (excluding Schupeter): 77 They ight be identified as ethodology, ethods and philosophy and sociology of science (as aids in interpreting the history of econoics) on the one hand, and systes of econoics or of the history of econoic thought, the econoic theory of distinct schools, the history of analysis by topic or thee and theatic history of ideas (broader than but ebracing the econoic) on the other. We call these categories, not very happily, the tools/ethodological and the theatic/analytical, for short. To give an idea of the kinds of subissions included in each, the latter covers such topics as the doctrines of the Chicago school, the history of the expectedutility hypothesis, the thee of sc arcity and abundance, and classical and Austrian approaches to the neutrality of oney. We have had to fall back on soe rules of thub. For exaple, a subission entitled Ricardo on oney counts as being about Ricardo, whereas Dichotoization in Ricardian odels falls under the theatidanalytical grouping. The tools/ ethodology category includes, for exaple, subissions on Thoas Kuhn and econoics, on the citation practices of econoists, on the international transission of econoic ideas and on Marshall s graphical ethods. When these two categories are added to the subset covered by Table, the nuber of subissions captured rises to 006, leaving soe 6 percent of the total unclassified. Table 3 gives a different subject classification of these 006 papers, in five categories. Colun (A), Great figures, includes studies on the Ada Siths of our world, and Colun (B), Minor or neglected figures, studies on the Daniel Rayonds. Von Thunen ay be regarded as both great and neglected, but he gets put in (A). Many subissions are not expositions of theory, but studies of soe applied or policy aspect of an econoist s work. Colun (C) represents purely policy studies (e.g., of the Truan Council of Econoic Advisers), not the theory of policy, which is 6 88

5 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 35 captured under (A), (B), or (E). Coluns (Ca) and (Cb) represent the applied or policy coponents of Coluns (A) and (B), and there is soe deliberate double-counting in respect of (A) and (Ca), (B) and (Cb). Colun (D) is our broad tools/ethodology category, and (E) is the equally broad and tentative theatic/analytical category. Colun (D) of Table 3 lups together studies of econoists knowledge with attepted general re-interpretations of the history of econoics. The latter tend to doinate this group. The bulk of subissions under (E) are studies of what Coats has called the antecedents of conteporary verities, or of what he describes as the ianent developent of econoic ideas as an autonoous body of theoretical knowledge. It ight be thought that the strong showing under Colun (B) reflects a oveent away fro the Great Man tradition of scholarship in the history of econoics. On closer inspection, it turns out that the vast ajority of entries in Colun (B) take their rise in the real or iagined fact that their subjects are iportant because they also had ideas that are to be found in works of the acknowledged Great, or they anticipated current verities. In other words, any subissions in Colun (B) are studies of also rans in Schupeter s sense, and reflect also his lineal view of the evolution of econoic theory. What eerges so far is that subissions over the first decade of HOPE apparently were strongly doinated by two approaches to writing the history of econoic thought-the Great Man (and by definition, Lesser Men) tradition, and the tradition which takes conteporary econoic theory as soe sort of standard of truth and seeks to push backwards in tie to discover first recognitions of correct forulations. By contrast, subissions reflect little attention to the developent of data or the tools of the econoist (ethods, specific techniques); or to the interaction of econoic theory and policy; or to the sociology of the disc i pl i ne. These last conclusions are based on Table 4, which shows the results of an attept to identify subissions which do not fall within the two traditions of historical writing entioned above. Under the heading Econoic theory and policy are included only studies dealing with specific easures (e.g., the Eployent Act of 946) or probles (e.g., ew Deal fiscal policy). In the final category are included all subissions dealing with the transission of ideas, the behavior of econoists as self-conscious ebers of a profession, and the sociology of discovery or revolution. Two observations on Table 4 are in order. Firstly, its four categories ebrace a very sall nuber of subissions, just under 3 percent of. A. W. Coats, Research priorities in the history of econoics, History of Political Econoy, I, no. (Spring 969): 9-8.

6 ~~~~~~ 36 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) Table 3. Average yearly subissions, by category Minor or Policy or applied Great neglected studies Tools/ Theatic/ figures figures Methodology Analytical (A) (B) (C) (Ca) (Cb) (D) (El ore: Row covers soewhat ore than 50 percent of subissions. Table 4. Subissions to HOPE in neglected categories Total Coprehensive re-interpretations Developent of the history of of data, tools, Econoic theory Sociology of econoics techniques and policy econoics a Reflects session papers subitted at the Section on Econoic Thought and Policy, Sixth International Conference on Econoic History, Copenhagen, August total subissions for the years ( 070 in all). Secondly, for every two studies on the developent of the knowledge of econoists and the sociology of econoics, Coluns () and (4), there is one attepted reconstruction of the whole history of econoic thought, Colun (). Historians of econoics, it sees, retain not only a fascination with the likes of Ricardo, but have a certain penchant too for that preature generalization for which he was so roundly attacked by opponents. I Up to this point we have dealt with subissions only, and with HOPE in isolation. It is possible to ake soe coparisons between HOPE S acceptances and articles in the history of econoic thought which have

7 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 37 appeared in other econoics journals. This gives us inforation on whether the patterns we have observed for HOPE are specific to it and allows us to assess whether the advent of HOPE has eant, as soe feared in the beginning, that history of thought would disappear fro the pages of ainstrea journals. To these ends we undertook a separate count of history-of-thought articles, using the Journal of Econoic Abstracts for the pre-hope period, , and its lineal successor, the Journal of Econoic Literature, for the period HOPE started publication in spring 969. To obtain soe picture of publications in the history of econoic thought before HOPE, the Journal of Econoic Abstracts3 was exained over its life period, Originally articles were listed by author and by journal, with no subject classification. The first attept at article classification occurred in July 964, and in Septeber 967 a separate History of Econoic Thought category was added. The procedure we followed was to exaine all articles and to identify those in the history of econoic thought by using article titles as the ain but not sole guide. Several difficulties we encountered and liitations of our work should be noted. The first issue of the Journal of Econoic Abstracts appeared in January 963, with the stated ai of covering not only standard journals but also journals not readily available to econoists. Articles published in sixteen countries and in eight languages were represented. This wide coverage-aplified in the Journal of Econoic Literature-eans that counts of articles will incorporate the soeties pervasive influence of (to Western eyes) obscure journals, outside the Aerican or British standard regien of reading. Secondly, the journal coverage is not unifor over tie. The 963 Index of the Journal of Econoic Abstracts lists 33 contributing journals. In 964 and 965, 38 were listed. In June 966, however, the periodical listing which forerly appeared in the Aerican Econoic Review was adopted for the Journal of Econoic Abstracts. This tripled the total nuber of articles presented in 966 and quadrupled the nuber in 967, copared with It also involved the incorporation for the first tie of any foreign journals. These inconsistencies liit what can be said 3. One referee has suggested that the coverage of the Journal of Econoic Abstracts was unreliable and unrepresentative. We used it notwithstanding, since, short of extrapolating the coverage of the Journal of Econoic Literature backwards-a ajor task of painstaking reclassification, involving perhaps 0,000 articles-it reains the only readily available source of inforation on articles in the history of econoic thought before 969. eedless to say, data for the pre-969 period are essential to appraising the ipact of HOPE. The proble reains that it is difficult to know what weight the pre-969 data will bear. Reconstituting that part of the data base is a task for further research. 4. The Deceber 966 issue of the Journal of Econoic Abstracts lists 0 separate journals. In Septeber, there were 39 journals. The figures for June 968 and Septeber I968 are 8 and journals respectively.

8 38 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) Table 5. Articles in the history of econoic thought vs. all articles listed in the Journal of Econoic Abstracts, 963 to Total History of econoic thought articles All articles with confidence about the growth in nuber of articles in the history of econoic thought over this period. Finally, a troublesoe question for our study was this: Where does the history of econoic thought stop and current econoics begin? Should Keynes and living Keynesians be included in the history of econoic thought tally? Do obituaries or articles reflecting on the contributions of the recently deceased really count as history of econoic thought? One suggestion we received was to adopt a dead for 30 years criterion. We preferred instead to use our judgent on this point, taking each case on its erits. A related proble is that to soe extent the increase in the nuber of articles in the history of econoic thought can be attributed to a tendency to advance the cut-off point for what counts as history to a date closer and closer to the present. Since the recent journal literature in econoics has been growing exponentially, counting very recent years in history eans that there is probably a built-in coponent to growth in history of econoic thought as well. There is also the siple fact that as econoists die, the pool of those who can be regarded as potential subjects for historyof-thought articles autoatically grows. An article on J. M. Clark in 963 would not have counted as history of econoic thought. Today it does. The results of our article counts are given in Tables 5 and 6. (Tables 6-0 are found at end of article.) Over the period it proved a anageable task to copare articles in the history of econoic thought with the total nuber of articles listed in the Journal of Econoic Abstracts. Clearly the coponent for history of econoic thought is very sall-perhaps between and 3 percent of all published articles listed. The proportion rises to 3 and 4 percent if only the standard (i.e., widely consulted) journals are covered. Seven leading generalist econoics journals accounted for 5 percent of all articles in the history of econoic thought listed over the period. It is of interest that up to 968 alost one in three of these articles appeared in Econoica. Econoica plus the Southern Econoic Journal account for ore than half of all articles listed under history of econoic thought in these leading journals in the six-year period. For the period after 968 a separate count of articles in the history of

9 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 39 econoic thought was undertaken, using the History of Econoic Thought and Methodology subject section (030) of the classification of the Journal of Econoic Literature. Once again, certain difficulties were encountered which should be laid before the reader. Firstly, we becae aware of soe entries under section 030 which we judged would be ore appropriately placed elsewhere, and vice versa. We ade adjustents a~cordingly.~ This sort of proble is alost bound to be present. We ight note that it arose for us only because we approached the Journal of Econoic Literature for inforation which it was never intended to supply. The Journal was established to guide researchers to potentially relevant literature, and classification was therefore quite deliberately done on the basis of using as any classifications as it was thought an article s contents warranted. This could ean that a single article would be listed under as any as four or five classifications. While the staff of the Journal were alert to the desirability of excluding articles fro any category which were alien to that category, our own judgent in certain cases was siply ore parsionious. This proble, to repeat, arose only because we were turning the Journal to uses for which it was not intended. Fortunately, it was not a serious enough atter to cause us to abandon our enquiry. A second proble is that there has been an increase in the nuber of journals indexed by the Journal of Econoic Literature over the period covered. For exaple, the June 969 classification covered 4 journals. By June 975 this had grown to 67 journals, and by June 979 to 85 journals.6 This growth ay indicate that soe existing journals were not indexed in earlier years and/or that soe new journals were established 5. Our procedure was to exaine the Journal of Econoic Literature classification 030, and to delete notes, coents, corrections, rejoinders, articles that were listed ore than once (for exaple, under 03 History of Econoic Thought and 036 Econoic Methodology), and articles that could not be classified as priarily history of econoic thought. This left us with 900 articles in the history of econoic thought over the period which we then classified according to title. Professor Perlan has suggested that article classification by title ay at ties be isleading. We agree, but see no pracrical alternative. Where we were uncertain over an article s classification we checked if the article had a published extract. Professor Perlan has suggested that we liit ourselves to those articles with published extracts, but we felt this would be unduly restrictive, since abstracted articles constituted only a sall proportion of all listed articles in the history of econoic thought. ote that these probles are lessened in classifying HOPE subissions, since one of the authors was failiar, as an editor, with the substance of alost all the papers involved. 6. Exaining only the June issue will result in underestiating the nuber of journals the Journal of Econoic Literarure indexes over a full year, for the siple technical reason that the June issue went to the printer towards the end of February. The February cut-off in turn eant that classifying for that issue was done partly in Deceber, when holiday interruptions occurred. onetheless the Index of Econoic Articles, an adjunct to the Journal of Econoic Literature, covers the sae journals, and it listed 8 contributing journals in 969, 0 in 973, and 34 in 977.

10 330 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) over the period studied. To the extent that the first explanation applies, it would be desirable to go back and count the articles in the history of econoic thought in newly listed journals for earlier years (before listing), so that the sae cohort of journals would be used over the whole period. We have siply skirted this proble by liiting the use to which we put the nubers showing growth. Our results are suarized in Tables 7 through 0. Table 7 provides one crude statistic-new books on the history of econoic thought-fro which we ight conclude that scholarly interest in the history of econoic thought has been fairly constant, HOPE or no HOPE.7 It is not obviously the case that the advent of HOPE has either spurred the production of onograph-length studies in the field or diverted efforts fro this sort of work. This ipression is confired in Table 8, which deals with articles. If we take the recent growth in econoics literature as a whole as being exponential, the odest growth in total nubers of published articles in the history of econoic thought suggests a continued relative decline in the subject. HOPE S provision of space, however, has been virtually constant after it changed in 974 fro twice-yearly to quarterly publication, while the nuber of articles in the history of econoic thought overall has doubled in absolute ters over the decade. In this liited sense it is clear that HOPE cannot be said to have produced a crowding out effect.8 There is soe scattered independent evidence that HOPE has associated with it a sort of ultiplier effect. Authors of articles in the history of econoic thought, like authors generally, are resilient and tenacious. They persist in seeking and obtaining alternative outlets when their anuscripts have been rejected by HOPE.9 This does not necessarily ean a dilution of the quality of the articles in the history of econoic thought in other journals. HOPE, like ost journals, rejects on a nuber of grounds, including that the treatent in a paper is ore appropriate to a generalist journal, or to a theoretical or an econoic-historical or soe other specialist journal. There is doubtless a feedback loop in this process. Papers rejected by other journals end up being accepted by HOPE. It would be a noral and natural process for editors to advise authors to redirect history-of-thought 7. Aong new books there was a substantial nuber of reprints of econoic classics. In the late 970s, however, their nubers see to have declined soewhat. 8. Over the period , HOPE accounted for 4.6 percent of all published articles in the history of econoic thought. 9. A casual inspection reveals that unsuccessful subissions to HOPE have been accepted by the South African Journal of Econoics, Journal of Econoic History, Land Econoics, Aerican Journal of Econoics and Sociology, Aerican Econoic Review, Econoic Journal, Econoica, Interountain Econoic Review, Manchester School of Econoic and Social Studies, Indian Econoic Journal, Journal of Political Econoy, Journal of Econoic Issues, Journal of European Econoic History, ebraska Journal of Econoics and Business, Scottish Journal of Political Econoy, and Kyklos.

11 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 33 subissions to a specialist journal such as HOPE. To the extent that this occurs one ight expect greater specialist expertise and consistency of refereeing to be brought to bear. This sort of reallocation process should therefore be no cause for regret, unless it eans a progressive separation of history of thought fro the audiences of generalist journals, and hence fro the profession as a whole. This was a concern of Lord Robbins, aong others, when it was announced that HOPE was to begin publication. Table 9 addresses this issue. It shows the results of a count of articles in history of econoic thought in seven leading generalist journals. Together, these accounted for 9.5 percent of all such articles over the period The nuber of articles in history of econoic thought appearing in these journals was fairly stable over the decade of the seventies, again suggesting that there has been no absolute 'crowding out,' although these data obviously do not reflect what ight have been.io Copared to the pre-hope period (see Table 6) there has been an average of two additional articles in history of econoic thought published per year, and such articles are ore evenly spread over the journals than was the case up to 968-a result reflecting in part the fact that absolutely fewer articles in history of econoic thought per year were appearing in Econoica and the Southern Econoic Journal. It is worth noting that while there was an appearance of growth in the nuber of articles in history of econoic thought in five of the leading journals-excluding Econoica and the Southern Econoic Journalthis was produced partly by idiosyncrasies which affect the sall total nubers involved. Half of the history-of-thought articles in the Aerican Econoic Review, for exaple, were either short notes (eight were of six pages or less) or papers by elder statesen, where the prestige of the author, as uch as the subject atter, ust have influenced the editorial decision. Siilarly, for the Journal of Political Econoy, there have been several articles written in honor of old Chicago econoists. Oxford Econoic Papers, for its part, has on occasion selected a thee, e.g., alienation, and published a series of articles dealing with it. A finding of interest, since it is in line with an ipression fored by looking at HOPE subissions alone-though we have not included it in the table-is that just five econoists directly or indirectly for the subjects of 40 percent of all articles in the history of econoics in the seven journals. KeynedKeynesians ake up 3 percent; Marx/Marxis 9 percent;" Sith, 8 percent; Ricardo, 6 percent; and Marshall, 3 percent. This 0. Thus, we do not know if the seven journals rejected articles in the history of econoic thought because they were thought to be ore suitable for HOPE, but would have accepted the had HOPE not existed.. The high Marx/Marxis percentage of articles is, on the face of it, at variance with clais of acadeic discriination against Marxist scholarship.

12 33 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) is less convincing evidence that the Great Man tradition still prevails than the siilar finding fro HOPE subissions, for one would expect the profession as a whole to be relatively ore attracted to the heroes of the discipline than are specialist historians of econoic thought. Table 0 presents the results of an attept to put articles in priary categories. Because the nubers involved were larger than in the case of HOPE subissions, a ore precise classification was used than in Table. For the sae reason, there is only a liited aount of double counting. * Soe of the categories need a word of explanation. Categories 7 and 6, containing the neglected/inor/unorthodox econoists, include a large nuber of East-bloc econoists whose contributions are recorded and eulogized in liited-audience journals. Such journals also account for any of the articles in the Marx/Marxian category. Category 5 contains articles of the Reebrances of Frisch type. Category 9 captures articles on the history and developent of tools, technical apparatus, and concepts (e.g., Origins of the balanced budget ultiplier theore ; History of consuer surplus theory ). Category 8 coprises three soewhat overlapping sorts of articles: (i) ethodology: l3 the role of atheatics, cybernetics, entropy, the identification proble, the use of psychology, positive/norative distinctions, the assuptions debate, and econoic rationality; (ii) articles on the nature and scope of econoics, often of a critical nature, with suggestions for refor (e.g., along institutionalist lines: Towards a huanistic econoics ); and (iii) (a far saller nuber on) the philosophy (Kuhn, Lakatos) and (even fewer on) the sociology of science. The nubers in Table 0 indicate that two categories (Methodology: 6.6 percent; Marx/Marxis: 5.4 percent) account for alost one-third of all history-of-thought articles listed. If one adds Sith, the ajor classical econoists, and Keynes and the Keynesians, fully half of the historyof-thought articles are accounted for. l4 In several categories, it should be noted, the nubers are doinated by articles on one or two individuals. In category, this is true of Quesnay and Hue; in category 5, of Ricardo and to a lesser extent Malthus; in category, Henry George doinates; and in category 0, Schupeter. It also happens that certain journals concentrate disproportionately on. Categories 9- would have been far larger if looser criteria had been eployed, but this would also have led to ore double-counting. When the authors applied looser standards in two saple years, 975 and 976, categories 9- doubled or tripled in the nubers of articles ebraced. 3. Soe readers questioned the cobining of Methodology and History of Econoic Thought articles. One argued that the study of the ethodology of econoics was not a part of, but a substitute for, the study of the history of econoic thought. We have separated the Methodology category in Table 0 and those who wish to do so ay delete it fro the totals. 4. The top eight categories account for two-thirds of all the articles in the history of econoic thought.

13 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 333 particular econoists or schools of thought.i5 Sudden jups in nubers for a particular category in a particular year therefore are often due to special eorial issues having been published. l 6 The categories used in Table 0, as we have noted, are rather sharper than those in the tables constructed for HOPE articles alone; so, to facilitate coparison, we did a recount of HOPE acceptances (not subissions) using the sae classification as in Table 0. The yearly acceptances in each category, taking HOPE in isolation, are so sall that only the total for the twelve years is given. These nubers for HOPE are shown in parentheses in the next-to-last colun, and the percentage breakdown in parentheses in the last colun. Two conclusions can be drawn fro the coparative nubers in the last two coluns of Table 0. On the one hand, articles in highly specialist subareas (such as are captured by categories, 7, ) score higher, as one would expect, in HOPE than in the generalist journals. Conversely, articles in categories of continuing general interest to any in the profession ( 3, 4, 5) show up-again as one would expect-ore heavily outside HOPE. This erely tells us that HOPE is perforing the kind of role one would expect of a specialist journal. IV Our findings can be restated briefly. They shed light on three ain issues of interest. Firstly, what can be said about HOPE and the decline in the history of econoic thought? There has long been concern felt by scholars in our field that it was undergoing a decline within the econoics profession as a whole. The evidence ost often cited in this connection is the steady eliination of required courses in the history of econoic thought fro graduate training progras. Taking, as an alternative easure, the total nuber of history-of-thought articles published, our own investigation 5. To illustrate, the Journal of Econoic Issues tends to concentrate on Institutionalists; the Scottish Journal of Political Econoy on Sith; Manchester School of Econoics and Social Studies on Jevons; Aerican Journal of Econoics and Sociology on George; and the SwedishfScandinavian Journal of Econoics on obel Prize winners. 6. This is true, for exaple in the following instances: Brad (Studii Si CercetaA Econoice 968); Balescu (Studii Si CercetaA Econoice 969); Saint-Sion (Econoies et Soci&tCs 970); Marginal Revolution (History of Political Econoy 97); Jevons (Man- Chester School of Econoics and Social Studies 97); Chicago School (Journal of Econoic Issues 975); Sith (Review of Social Econoy 976); Kalecki (Bulletin, Oxford University Institute of Econoics and Statistics 977); Dobb (Cabridge Journal of Econoics 978); Ricardo (Indian Econoic Journal 977); Malthus (Indian Econoic Journal 978f79). 7. Other easures-percentage of (U.S.) schools ofering graduate or undergraduate courses-suggest anything but a decline. See John J. Siegfried and Jaes T. Wilkinson, The Econoics cuculu in the United States: 980, Aerican Econoic Review, Papers and Proceedings 7 (May 98): Table 0 there (p. 33) especially provides

14 334 History of Political Econoy 5:3 (983) confirs a relative decline. History-of-thought articles grew linearly while the econoics literature as a whole grew exponentially.8 The advent of HOPE in 969 does not see to have prevented articles in the history of econoic thought fro being published in other journals. Indeed, since HOPE s available space has been roughly constant while the total nuber of history-of-thought articles has expanded, this suggests that history of thought is increasingly being published elsewhere. In particular the leading generalist journals do not see to have devoted less space to history-ofthought articles in the post-hope period. Secondly, we can say soething on the basis of our findings in relation to the question whether HOPE s coing into being has been accopanied by a reallocation of space such that other journals concentrate relatively ore on general-interest topics in the history of thought. The percentage distribution of articles by category confirs that highly specialist articles do weigh ore heavily in HOPE s distribution than in that of the generalist journals we have exained. The distributions cover only the period , however, so it is still not certain that this represents a change fro what was, in the era before HOPE. All that we ay conclude is that it is a pattern consistent with rational editorial policy once a new specialist journal has begun publication. A third set of issues on which our findings bear is the nature of the subissions ade to HOPE, and what this iplies about the preferences of scholars in the field. Historians of econoic thought ay proceed by taking as given that knowledge is cuulative and that their task is to identify first correct perceptions of the eleents (tools, theories, etc.) of what is currently accepted as truth. Alternatively, they ay try to identify schools and link these with certain doinant individuals or texts. Again, they ay lay down criteria of progress in econoic knowledge and try to reconstruct coherent lines of inquiry consistent (or not) with these criteria. Or they ay write their history according to a survival-of-the-fittest notion of how interesting inforation, including a coparison of the percentage of schools offering History of Thought courses in 950 and 980. The percentage has risen fro 60.5 to The literature of the profession as a whole undoubtedly reflects the growth in use of econoetrics. The spreading use of econoetrics eans in part that there is a natural ultiplication of applied studies, related ore or less closely by coon data, proble, or technique, but each a differentiated product with clais to separate publication. The growth in nubers of applied studies has at the sae tie been fostered by the econoic iperialis of the past two decades. The History of Thought literature, by contrast, sees to be uch ore tightly bound to a relatively narrow pool of subjects (a liited data base)-despite the new issues suggested in Professor Coats article in this issue of HOP -and its sall group of practitioners do not agree on any coon ethodology. Other things being equal, these characteristics are growth-inhibiting, We are indebted to Mark Perlan for the initial suggestion along these lines. The explanation of differential growth aong the subdisciplines of econoics reains an intriguing but too little cultivated field.

15 de Marchi and Lodewijks - HOPE and journal literature 335 current verities have coe to be what they are; or according to a sociological odel; or a Marxist odel. And there are any other possibilities. Our exaination of subissions to HOPE over its first decade sees to iply that the Great MedGreat Books and the antecedents-of-current-verities approaches doinate work in the field. As to the first finding, however, this ust be interpreted with soe caution. Taken at face value, it probably is about the sae result as a coparable survey taken fifty years ago would have shown. But that no substantive change has occurred over this tie span is unlikely. We suspect that a closer inspection of today s papers on Sith and Ricardo, for exaple, would reveal in any instances a concern with thees so different fro those of a half-century ago that classification on the basis of a reference to Sith or Ricardo in the title is ore isleading than enlightening. In other words, a continuing apparent concern with great econoists and their works ay not warrant the conclusion that the Great Man/Great Books approach of yesteryear is in fact still doinant. As this suggests, and as will be obvious in other ways as well, ours has been only an exploratory foray, and that into an uncharted area. There is uch that could be done on the sociology of the History of Econoic Thought subdiscipline and on the editorial process-things we have not attepted to investigate. How concentrated (by author) are history-of-thought publications in the leading journals? What is the extent and nature of the audience for the history of econoic thought? What can we learn fro citations data about the uses ade of the past by conteporary econoists? Again, taking the writing of the history of thought itself, it would be worthwhile trying to specify ore precisely the kinds of history done by scholars in our field, so as to chart the changes in the historiographic landscape and thus provide an aid to scholars for reflecting on what they are doing. HOPE represents just a fragent of the total picture, and what we have done here erely ephasizes the need for ore detailed and extended inquiries. It is to be hoped that others will go beyond our siple exercises and address soe of the reaining issues. While this article is in a true sense a joint product, ain responsibility for section I lies with de Marchi and for section with Lodewijks. The authors are grateful to Craufurd Goodwin, A. W. Coats, John Pullen, Denis O Brien, Mark Perlan, and Mark Blaug for coents. Professor Perlan s criticiss have been especially helpful, and we have tried to eet the adequately, though it is doubtful if we have satisfied his objections to our desire to use the Journal of Econoic Literature as a statistical source.

16 Table 6. Articles in the history of econoic thought in seven leading econoic journals, 963 to 968 (Journal of Econoic Abstracts listings) ch Journal of Political Econoy Econoica Southern Econoic Journal Ogord Econoic Papers Aerican Econoic Review Econoic Journal Quarterly Journal of Econoics Total Total History of econoic thought articles Der vear

17 Source: Journal of Econoic Literature, ew Books, History of Econoic Thought and Methodology classification. The nuber for 973 excludes all of the Keynes volues. Table 7. ew books in the history of econoic thought and ethodology, w 4 Table 8. Articles on the history of econoic thought and ethodology, Total ubers of articles HOPE S contribution The blank entry for HOPE in 969 denotes that while this year arked the first issue of HOPE, these articles are not recorded in the Journal of Econoic Literature until later years. Source: Journal of Econoic Literature classification , History of Econoic Thought; 036, Methodology.

18 Table 9. Publications in history of econoic thought and ethodology ( ) in seven leading generalist econoic journals (Journal of Econoic Literature listings) History of econoic thought, articles Total per year Journal of Political Econoy Econoica Southern Econoic O0 Journal Oxford Econoic Papers Aerican Econoic Review Econoic Journal Quarterly Journal of Econoics Total

19 \on?? -c 00s W - P \o O d - \ o - d CA O O d 0 P - vr 6 3

20 z \D v, d- 00 v, v, v, d- \o d 8 4 d v, v, 00 \o \o d- Ifl \o 00 s \o z 340

21 h lala - \o VI P4 c c c-4 VI 0 c-4 4 VI c-4 c-4 I- = 00 c-4 c-4 VI c-4 d d c \o 0 0 c-4 e CI 34 CI

22 G OC - - * v, v, W c\( W 00 s s W U W

23 4.68 (6.49).09 (.9).77 (0.68).03 (3.05) 00.0 (00.0) w 9. Tools, technical apparatus and concepts 0. Analytical/ odeling. Theatic. Policy/applied studies Total (7) (6) (8) (8) (6) ote: ubers for HOPE are given in parentheses in the last two coluns.