History and Philosophy of Economics 2025-07-21

Piero Sraffa, Pierangelo Garegnani, and Luigi Pasinetti undermined the analytical foundations of marginalist price and distribution theories and recovered the surplus approach proper to classical economists. This paper studies the comparative usefulness of, respectively, the marginalist and the modern surplus approaches for the interpretation of pre-capitalistic economies and for the theory of institutions, also in the light of Polanyi’s contribution. With this in mind, the paper examines some recent mainstream contributions concerning the origin of inequality and related institutions. Challenging, they adopt materialist explanations of the origin of inequality and institutions drawn from archaeological studies. On the critical side, these studies reject with poor arguments the classical surplus approach. Moreover, they employ marginalist concepts, in particular the relative scarcity of production factors, to explain the onset of inequality. Those concepts are of a spurious nature, especially once applied to ancient economies. In this respect, the paper refers both to Marx’s and Polanyi’s emphasis on the role of ‘embedded’ rather than market relations in ancient societies, and to Sraffa’s criticism of ‘marginism’ (scarce historical realism) to the marginalist curves related to production (Rosselli and Trabucchi 2019). Sergio Cesaratto Origins of inequality, Surplus approach, Marginalism, Samuel Bowles, Sraffa’s Marginism Jel Classification: A12, B51, B52, N01, Z13 2025-07 The paper studies the development of the Economics of Science as a new emerging field in the social sciences during the period 1994-2023. To identify the community of scholars working on this new scientific topic, we examine authors citing two seminal papers and use network analysis to investigate the cognitive and organizational characteristics of the community of authors. Our findings suggest that the Economics of Science is still in the process of becoming an independent and cohesive field, exhibiting a highly fragmented structure. We also study the role of the "Workshop on the Organisation, Economics, and Policy of Scientific Research" (WOEPS), initiated in 2007, for the Economics of Science community. We show that WOEPS presenters have more economists of science as coauthors and are better positioned to connect different clusters of authors in the wider Economics of Science network than other members of the network, highlighting its importance for linking scholars in the field. We also show that WOEPS papers are published in higher "quality" journals, receive relatively more citations, and significantly more citations from within the Economics of Science field compared to other Economics of Science papers. Daniel Souza Aldo Geuna Cornelia Lawson Economics of Science, Scientific Communities, Network Analysis, Field Formation 2025 Peer review is central to the lives of researchers. We conduct a survey on improving peer review to which we received responses from over 1, 400 economists. The survey is the bedrock of this article, which was written to (i) document the current state of peer review and (ii) investigate concrete steps towards improving it. We offer a snapshot of the recent submission and peer review activity of respondents, detail the difficulties they report facing, and measure their attitudes about various challenges and possible proposals to address them. We hope that this report will provide fertile ground for the development and implementation of practical solutions for improving peer review in economics. Charness, Gary Dreber, Anna Evans, Daniel Gill, Adam Toussaert, Severine 2025-07-10 In this chapter, wie es eigentlich gewesen (ist) —as it actually happened— and zu den Sachen selbst —to the things themselves— resonate particularly through the engagement with the concepts of Verstehen — understanding— and Erklären —explaining—, two methodological poles in dynamic tension that continue to shape research in economic history in Western Europe, and arguably at the global level. Claude DIEBOLT Cliometrics, Economic history, Economics, History. 2025 This paper reflects on the impact of the Great British Class Survey, hosted by the BBC from 2011 to 2013. I argue that its intense appeal lay in the ability to crystallize three separate trends in one piece of research. These are (i) the problems of relying on a single variable definition of class, such as one based on employment and occupation; (ii) the growing significance of wealth and property as a central driver of 21st century class relations; and (iii) the inherent intersectionality of class with multiple other divides, notably around race and gender. The Great British Class Survey both undercut occupationally based models of class analysis that had become hegemonic during the late 20th century, and offered a template for a new multidimensional approach to class analysis. I consider how these multidimensional perspectives on class are being strengthened through the important shift towards centering wealth and property as the 21st century bedrock of class relations. Savage, Mike class; Great British Class Survey; wealth; multidimensional inequality 2025-06-01 The neoclassical economics of childbearing turns 65 this year, marking the anniversary of Gary Becker’s foundational article on the subject in 1960. This review article begins with a study of how childbearing has evolved in the United States over the last century, identifying distinctive features of the post-1960 era. Next, the article discusses standard neoclassical models of childbearing and shows how augmenting them with a supply side, which includes access to and information about contraception and abortion, increases their explanatory power. After reviewing recent quasi-experimental research testing this augmented model, the final part of the article reflects upon the implications of the recent transformation in US fertility rates for women and children and suggests fruitful avenues for future research. Martha J. Bailey 2025-06 Climate change is a global challenge requiring unprecedented levels of collective action. In this context, this paper asks: do appeals to historical responsibility facilitate or hinder collective action? This paper uses a simple lab experiment simulating climate mitigation bargaining between high- and low-income countries. A key design feature is that the need for mitigation is triggered based on historical actions that were undertaken without knowledge of their impact on the environment (and hence, the need for mitigation). Two treatment arms were conducted, a baseline where the cause for mitigation (past actions) is not revealed, and a treatment—“the shadow of history”—where the historical origins of the problem are made explicit. In both conditions, negotiations take place regarding contributions to a mitigation fund (i.e., collective action). Results show that revealing the shadow of history marginally increases average contributions, but the distribution of those contributions changes markedly. When made aware of the historical causes of the climate problem, low-income countries significantly reduce their contributions, while high-income countries contribute more—offsetting the reduction. Critically, the overall welfare of low-income countries increases, while it decreases for high-income countries. Moreover, results from textual analysis of chat data show greater tension when historical responsibility is made explicit, with more negative sentiment and adversarial conversations. These results suggest that appealing to historical responsibility appears to be a successful negotiations tactic for poor countries. Banuri, Sheheryar Sergenti, Ernest John 2025-06-30