What has mattered to economics since 1970

We compile the list of articles published in major refereed economics
journals during the last 35 years that have received more than 500
citations.  We document major shifts in the mode of contribution and in
the importance of different sub-fields: Theory loses out to empirical
work, and micro and macro give way to growth and development in the
1990s.  While we do not witness any decline in the primacy of production
in the United States over the period, the concentration of institutions
within the U.S. hosting and training authors of the highly-cited
articles has declined substantially.

That is from Kim, Morse, and Zingales; here is the paper.


The world has caught up to the US in sports (pointing to the recent failings of our 'dream teams" in numerous sports recently)...now they're catching up in Econ.

I blame capitalism.

I misunderstood it all. Appareantly the is less concentration within the US but wihtout “benefting† Europe or the rest of the world. Hence, the US is still as dominant in publications but there is less concentration within the US.

"But can we really say that White's heteroscedasticity correction was more important than the Lucas critique?"

If you've done a modicum of empirical work, yes you can.

"More important" is not a useful phrase.

Comparing one paper from this list against another - what's the point?

What about other important papers that for whatever reason did not "score" 500 citations? How about some nominations?


Actually, this is a question concerning the integrity of this list.
As BOC pointed out, this paper assumes each citation carries the same weight.

Should it? How can you answer a question concerning the quality of a citation without first answering what makes a quality citation (i.e. what is actually "important")?

Comments for this post are closed