We review work that has linked economic inequality and culture to governance quality. We start with contributions that have considered the relationship between inequality and governance from a long‐run perspective. This historical perspective yields a range of insights and helps identify the deep drivers of specific cultural traits that relate to both economic inequality and governance in contemporary societies. We then survey work that has linked inequality and culture to governance in present‐day settings. We identify the complexity of the relationships with causality between any pair of these variables running both ways. These causal patterns, in turn, imply that countries may end up in either a good equilibrium characterized by lower economic inequality, the “right” culture and good governance, or a bad equilibrium described by greater inequality, the “wrong” culture and bad governance. We conclude with a range of policy implications.
{"title":"Economic inequality, culture, and governance quality","authors":"Andreas P. Kyriacou","doi":"10.1111/joes.12623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12623","url":null,"abstract":"We review work that has linked economic inequality and culture to governance quality. We start with contributions that have considered the relationship between inequality and governance from a long‐run perspective. This historical perspective yields a range of insights and helps identify the deep drivers of specific cultural traits that relate to both economic inequality and governance in contemporary societies. We then survey work that has linked inequality and culture to governance in present‐day settings. We identify the complexity of the relationships with causality between any pair of these variables running both ways. These causal patterns, in turn, imply that countries may end up in either a good equilibrium characterized by lower economic inequality, the “right” culture and good governance, or a bad equilibrium described by greater inequality, the “wrong” culture and bad governance. We conclude with a range of policy implications.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140585925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper surveys the literature on historical national accounting, discusses the importance of relative income benchmarks for, in particular, historical income estimates, and presents an update of long run global economic development with a new version of the Maddison Project Database (MPD). As benchmarks are central to methodologies for global income comparisons over time, and therefore vital to MPD, we analyze the consequences and biases of three benchmarks, the 1990 benchmark, the 2011 benchmark and the multiple benchmark method following the recent Penn World Tables (PWT) methodology, for pre‐1940 income estimates. We develop a methodology to determine which benchmark in combination with time series produces the best anchor for the historical income estimates in the MPD. We conclude that the best way forward for the Maddison Project is to stick to the original 1990 benchmark, yet with two important changes. First, we integrate the 2011 benchmark for the post‐1990 period, and second, we fine tune the dataset for the pre‐1940 period by integrating a new historical benchmark for the US/UK comparison in 1909. By integrating more benchmarks, the MPD moves closer to a multiple benchmark approach as developed by the PWT.
{"title":"Maddison‐style estimates of the evolution of the world economy: A new 2023 update","authors":"Jutta Bolt, Jan Luiten van Zanden","doi":"10.1111/joes.12618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12618","url":null,"abstract":"This paper surveys the literature on historical national accounting, discusses the importance of relative income benchmarks for, in particular, historical income estimates, and presents an update of long run global economic development with a new version of the Maddison Project Database (MPD). As benchmarks are central to methodologies for global income comparisons over time, and therefore vital to MPD, we analyze the consequences and biases of three benchmarks, the 1990 benchmark, the 2011 benchmark and the multiple benchmark method following the recent Penn World Tables (PWT) methodology, for pre‐1940 income estimates. We develop a methodology to determine which benchmark in combination with time series produces the best anchor for the historical income estimates in the MPD. We conclude that the best way forward for the Maddison Project is to stick to the original 1990 benchmark, yet with two important changes. First, we integrate the 2011 benchmark for the post‐1990 period, and second, we fine tune the dataset for the pre‐1940 period by integrating a new historical benchmark for the US/UK comparison in 1909. By integrating more benchmarks, the MPD moves closer to a multiple benchmark approach as developed by the PWT.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140602155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following the 2007/2008 financial crisis, the price effects of commodity financialization have become an important research topic. We review the empirical evidence, focusing on statistical approaches and econometric models, and find that (1) Granger‐causality tests are unable to establish a relationship between commodity futures prices and funds of financial investors, implying a lack of evidence that financialization influences commodity futures prices and (2) studies that use correlation and price spread analysis mostly report evidence of a significant price effect of financialization. Thus, the statistical and econometric approaches adopted by the various studies influence the empirical findings. In addition, data identification may have an impact since economic models and statistical techniques can be sensitive to slight differences in the dataset. Our study of the literature shows that the definition of financialization is open‐ended and ambiguous. A theoretical literature review on financialization could be the logical next step.
{"title":"Price effects of commodity financialization: Review of the evidence","authors":"M. M. Kupabado, Juergen Kaehler","doi":"10.1111/joes.12619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12619","url":null,"abstract":"Following the 2007/2008 financial crisis, the price effects of commodity financialization have become an important research topic. We review the empirical evidence, focusing on statistical approaches and econometric models, and find that (1) Granger‐causality tests are unable to establish a relationship between commodity futures prices and funds of financial investors, implying a lack of evidence that financialization influences commodity futures prices and (2) studies that use correlation and price spread analysis mostly report evidence of a significant price effect of financialization. Thus, the statistical and econometric approaches adopted by the various studies influence the empirical findings. In addition, data identification may have an impact since economic models and statistical techniques can be sensitive to slight differences in the dataset. Our study of the literature shows that the definition of financialization is open‐ended and ambiguous. A theoretical literature review on financialization could be the logical next step.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140376259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims to bridge the mainstream social science and the economic history literatures on the drivers of gender equality across contexts. We discuss the explanations in the social science literature on five central dimensions of global gender equality—health, work, education, marriage, and political representation—and survey the economic history literature that studied these explanations in the historical context. We analyze the commonalities and contradictions in the theoretical and methodological approaches of the two strands. The survey then offers an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that can bridge the two strands. By doing so, the review article discusses how incorporating the economic history literature into the social science literature can improve our current understanding of global gender equality in two ways. First, the long durée perspective provides insight into the diversity in the historical turning points in gender equality across world regions over the 20th century. Second, it suggests that the integration of a historical perspective can tackle the difficulties in isolating causal mechanisms and identify why standard economic and institutional conditions have varying impacts on gender equality outcomes across world regions. It also identifies the limitations in the current social science and economic history literatures and provide directions for future research.
{"title":"Synthesizing explanations behind global gender (in)equality: Identifying the gaps and moving forward with more economic history","authors":"Selin Dilli","doi":"10.1111/joes.12620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12620","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to bridge the mainstream social science and the economic history literatures on the drivers of gender equality across contexts. We discuss the explanations in the social science literature on five central dimensions of global gender equality—health, work, education, marriage, and political representation—and survey the economic history literature that studied these explanations in the historical context. We analyze the commonalities and contradictions in the theoretical and methodological approaches of the two strands. The survey then offers an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that can bridge the two strands. By doing so, the review article discusses how incorporating the economic history literature into the social science literature can improve our current understanding of global gender equality in two ways. First, the long durée perspective provides insight into the diversity in the historical turning points in gender equality across world regions over the 20th century. Second, it suggests that the integration of a historical perspective can tackle the difficulties in isolating causal mechanisms and identify why standard economic and institutional conditions have varying impacts on gender equality outcomes across world regions. It also identifies the limitations in the current social science and economic history literatures and provide directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This survey sheds light on the causes and consequences of the global sanitary revolution that resulted in the spread of waterworks and sewerage projects since the middle of the 19th century, by drawing on research from the fields of economic history, economics, and history. I begin with a discussion of the construction of these infrastructures during the period ca. 1850–1950 showing that their spread was relatively similar in major urban cities across the globe, while diffusion within and between countries, as well as within cities themselves, was markedly unequal. Second, I review research estimating the mortality impact of access to clean water and sanitation. Following the provision of these services, infant mortality declined between ca. 10 and 30 percent. Lastly, I examine the drivers of the sanitary revolution with a new framework that distinguishes between proximate factors (e.g., physical capital) and ultimate factors (e.g., institutions). I argue that the state of knowledge in the literature is insufficient to explain between‐ and within country differences in access to sanitary services and that more attention should be devoted to the interaction of political and economic factors within broader institutional, cultural and biogeographic contexts.
{"title":"The global sanitary revolution in historical perspective","authors":"Daniel Gallardo‐Albarrán","doi":"10.1111/joes.12607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12607","url":null,"abstract":"This survey sheds light on the causes and consequences of the global sanitary revolution that resulted in the spread of waterworks and sewerage projects since the middle of the 19th century, by drawing on research from the fields of economic history, economics, and history. I begin with a discussion of the construction of these infrastructures during the period ca. 1850–1950 showing that their spread was relatively similar in major urban cities across the globe, while diffusion within and between countries, as well as within cities themselves, was markedly unequal. Second, I review research estimating the mortality impact of access to clean water and sanitation. Following the provision of these services, infant mortality declined between ca. 10 and 30 percent. Lastly, I examine the drivers of the sanitary revolution with a new framework that distinguishes between <jats:italic>proximate</jats:italic> factors (e.g., physical capital) and ultimate factors (e.g., institutions). I argue that the state of knowledge in the literature is insufficient to explain between‐ and within country differences in access to sanitary services and that more attention should be devoted to the interaction of political and economic factors within broader institutional, cultural and biogeographic contexts.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Quirin Dammerer, Ludwig List, Miriam Rehm, Matthias Schnetzer
This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between the functional distribution of income and aggregate demand, which investigates whether declining wage shares increase (“profit‐led”) or decrease (“wage‐led”) demand. It conducts a meta‐regression analysis of 33 studies with 578 estimates for total and domestic demand, covering up to 163 years and 59 countries and regions. Our results suggest that, on average and across all countries, total demand is predominantly profit‐led and domestic demand mainly wage‐led. The effects in the literature range between 0.8 and −0.3 within one standard deviation for domestic demand and between 0.4 and −0.7 for total demand, which are economically significant at the outer bounds. We find mixed evidence for publication selectivity, which may affect the size but not the direction of the results in the literature. If one was to nonetheless correct for this, then total demand would be less profit‐led or statistically insignificant. A set of moderator variables, including publication characteristics, estimation strategies, the covariates included in the studies’ estimation functions, and, in particular, controls for time and space, help explain the variation in the empirical estimates.
{"title":"Macroeconomic effects of a declining wage share: A meta‐analysis of the functional income distribution and aggregate demand","authors":"Quirin Dammerer, Ludwig List, Miriam Rehm, Matthias Schnetzer","doi":"10.1111/joes.12614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12614","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between the functional distribution of income and aggregate demand, which investigates whether declining wage shares increase (“profit‐led”) or decrease (“wage‐led”) demand. It conducts a meta‐regression analysis of 33 studies with 578 estimates for total and domestic demand, covering up to 163 years and 59 countries and regions. Our results suggest that, on average and across all countries, total demand is predominantly profit‐led and domestic demand mainly wage‐led. The effects in the literature range between 0.8 and −0.3 within one standard deviation for domestic demand and between 0.4 and −0.7 for total demand, which are economically significant at the outer bounds. We find mixed evidence for publication selectivity, which may affect the size but not the direction of the results in the literature. If one was to nonetheless correct for this, then total demand would be less profit‐led or statistically insignificant. A set of moderator variables, including publication characteristics, estimation strategies, the covariates included in the studies’ estimation functions, and, in particular, controls for time and space, help explain the variation in the empirical estimates.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Innovations can substantially contribute to the transformation toward sustainability if they induce a positive social and/or environmental impact. Such sustainable innovations differ considerably from conventional, purely economic innovations. The main difference stems from the different knowledge bases necessary for the development of these innovations. These knowledge bases are widely dispersed across different actors from business, academia, government, and civil society. Following the innovation system approach, we look at actor constellations, linkages between actors, and knowledge flows within networks that generate sustainable innovations. For this purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review, focusing on the concept of proximity and its five dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, and social proximity). The results show that all proximity dimensions, as well as the interdependencies between them, are relevant for analyzing knowledge flows leading to sustainable innovations. The interplay of the different proximity dimensions can be described via two mechanisms, one being reinforcement and the other one being either substitution or overlap. We conclude that for the occurrence of radical, systemic innovations, which have the potential of altering the prevailing socio-economic paradigm toward greater sustainability, a combination of low cognitive and low (micro-) institutional proximity combined with high organizational, social, or geographical proximity, appears particularly conducive.
{"title":"Sustainable innovations, knowledge and the role of proximity: A systematic literature review","authors":"Ulrich Wilke, Andreas Pyka","doi":"10.1111/joes.12617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12617","url":null,"abstract":"Innovations can substantially contribute to the transformation toward sustainability if they induce a positive social and/or environmental impact. Such sustainable innovations differ considerably from conventional, purely economic innovations. The main difference stems from the different knowledge bases necessary for the development of these innovations. These knowledge bases are widely dispersed across different actors from business, academia, government, and civil society. Following the innovation system approach, we look at actor constellations, linkages between actors, and knowledge flows within networks that generate sustainable innovations. For this purpose, we conduct a systematic literature review, focusing on the concept of proximity and its five dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, and social proximity). The results show that all proximity dimensions, as well as the interdependencies between them, are relevant for analyzing knowledge flows leading to sustainable innovations. The interplay of the different proximity dimensions can be described via two mechanisms, one being reinforcement and the other one being either substitution or overlap. We conclude that for the occurrence of radical, systemic innovations, which have the potential of altering the prevailing socio-economic paradigm toward greater sustainability, a combination of low cognitive and low (micro-) institutional proximity combined with high organizational, social, or geographical proximity, appears particularly conducive.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides an overview of long‐term trends in income and wealth inequality, from ca. 1300 until today. It discusses recent acquisitions in terms of inequality measurement, building upon earlier research and systematically connecting preindustrial, industrial, and post‐industrial tendencies. It shows that in the last seven centuries or so, inequality of both income and wealth has tended to grow continuously, with two exceptions: the century or so following the Black Death pandemic of 1347–52, and the period from the beginning of World War I until the mid‐1970s. It discusses recent encompassing hypotheses about the factors leading to long‐run inequality change, highlighting their relative merits and faults, and arguing for the need to pay close attention to the historical context.
{"title":"Inequality in history: A long‐run view","authors":"Guido Alfani","doi":"10.1111/joes.12616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12616","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of long‐term trends in income and wealth inequality, from ca. 1300 until today. It discusses recent acquisitions in terms of inequality measurement, building upon earlier research and systematically connecting preindustrial, industrial, and post‐industrial tendencies. It shows that in the last seven centuries or so, inequality of both income and wealth has tended to grow continuously, with two exceptions: the century or so following the Black Death pandemic of 1347–52, and the period from the beginning of World War I until the mid‐1970s. It discusses recent encompassing hypotheses about the factors leading to long‐run inequality change, highlighting their relative merits and faults, and arguing for the need to pay close attention to the historical context.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140047422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The productivity growth slowdown in advanced economies during the early decades of the 21st century has led to renewed interest in economic measurement. Measured productivity growth has largely evaporated, yet in many ways, the average person is better off than at any time in history and technological advance is ever evident. Are we simply, or at least in part, mismeasuring productivity change? More fundamentally, are we measuring an outdated or otherwise less relevant economic concept? What should and can we measure in the interest of developing evidence‐based policy solutions to support productivity growth? This paper reviews some of the recent advances in economic measurement and points to an expanded productivity measurement research agenda arising from these questions.
{"title":"Productivity measurement: Reassessing the production function from micro to macro","authors":"Josh Martin, Rebecca Riley","doi":"10.1111/joes.12615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12615","url":null,"abstract":"The productivity growth slowdown in advanced economies during the early decades of the 21<jats:sup>st</jats:sup> century has led to renewed interest in economic measurement. Measured productivity growth has largely evaporated, yet in many ways, the average person is better off than at any time in history and technological advance is ever evident. Are we simply, or at least in part, mismeasuring productivity change? More fundamentally, are we measuring an outdated or otherwise less relevant economic concept? What should and can we measure in the interest of developing evidence‐based policy solutions to support productivity growth? This paper reviews some of the recent advances in economic measurement and points to an expanded productivity measurement research agenda arising from these questions.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140047893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz
As the year 2020 marks the 60th anniversary of the landmark paper in the Law & Economics (L&E) field by Ronald Coase—The Problem of Social Cost—we provide a systematic bibliometric analysis of the development of this field over the years. We look at the output and input side of knowledge production in the field of L&E. The former consists of the volume of production and thematic coverage of the field. The latter—input—looks at the producers of knowledge, the institutional and country affiliations of authors, and the intellectual structure of the field. Thus, the “who”, the “where” knowledge is produced as is also that of on “whose” shoulders the field stands. We demonstrate that Law & Economics shifted from more theory driven work to empirical and evidence‐based contributions. Likewise, we show that the Law & Economics field tends to be dominated by authors affiliated with economics departments, and crucially; however, more impactful research seems to be produced by inter‐disciplinary cooperation. The L&E field further resembles the economics domain in terms of co‐authorship patterns, number of citations and lengths of papers. Finally, we look at diversity in the field of L&E and show, for instance, that the share of female scholars has been steadily growing for the last two decades.
2020 年是罗纳德-科斯（Ronald Coase）在法律与经济学（L&E）领域发表里程碑式论文《社会成本问题》（The Problem of Social Cost）60 周年，我们对该领域多年来的发展进行了系统的文献计量分析。我们研究了法律和经济学领域知识生产的产出和投入方面。前者包括该领域的产量和专题覆盖面。后者--投入--则是指知识的生产者、作者所在的机构和国家以及该领域的知识结构。因此，"谁 "和 "在哪里 "生产知识，也是该领域 "站在谁的肩膀上 "的问题。我们表明，法律与经济学已从更多的理论研究转向以经验和证据为基础的研究。同样，我们还表明，法律与经济学领域往往由经济学系的作者主导，但关键的是，跨学科合作似乎能产生更有影响力的研究成果。在合著模式、引用次数和论文长度方面，法律与经济学领域与经济学领域更为相似。最后，我们审视了 L&E 领域的多样性，并举例说明，在过去二十年中，女性学者的比例一直在稳步增长。
{"title":"Law & Economics at sixty: Mapping the field with bibliometric and machine learning tools","authors":"Elena Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz","doi":"10.1111/joes.12613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12613","url":null,"abstract":"As the year 2020 marks the 60th anniversary of the landmark paper in the Law & Economics (L&E) field by Ronald Coase—The Problem of Social Cost—we provide a systematic bibliometric analysis of the development of this field over the years. We look at the output and input side of knowledge production in the field of L&E. The former consists of the volume of production and thematic coverage of the field. The latter—input—looks at the producers of knowledge, the institutional and country affiliations of authors, and the intellectual structure of the field. Thus, the “who”, the “where” knowledge is produced as is also that of on “whose” shoulders the field stands. We demonstrate that Law & Economics shifted from more theory driven work to empirical and evidence‐based contributions. Likewise, we show that the Law & Economics field tends to be dominated by authors affiliated with economics departments, and crucially; however, more impactful research seems to be produced by inter‐disciplinary cooperation. The L&E field further resembles the economics domain in terms of co‐authorship patterns, number of citations and lengths of papers. Finally, we look at diversity in the field of L&E and show, for instance, that the share of female scholars has been steadily growing for the last two decades.","PeriodicalId":51374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Surveys","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139954152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：