ABSTRACT

Using 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.

抽象的

使用社会网络分析工具，我们从1990年代初开始在两种最重要的经济学方法学期刊（即经济学哲学）中研究引文模式。我们主要集中于评估现有解释性文献中的四个历史主张。与文献相符，我们发现（1）将领域划分为三个维度（对应于行动理论，伦理学和科学哲学）是明智的，并且（2）对一般哲学问题的关注（称为大M） ）稳步下降。与文献相反，我们发现（3）在主要期刊中没有偏离异端经济学：从一开始就没有明显的兴趣。最后，我们更新了有关主流主流多元化研究的文献资料：