6
$\begingroup$

In the econ literature, what is the convention when it comes to (not) hypenating some common terms like:

  • first(-?)best, second(-?)best,...
  • best(-?)response?
  • ...

The Economist suggests that "There is no firm rule to help you decide which words are run together, hyphenated or left separate" so I thought people here could be more aware of the conventions in econ than people, say, at http://english.stackexchange.com.

| improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Personally for compound adjectives I would use "This response is second best" but "This is a second-best response". So long as you are not ambiguous, I doubt it matters. $\endgroup$ – Henry Sep 20 '16 at 17:41
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Of all the responses to this question, I like the second best. $\endgroup$ – Giskard Sep 20 '16 at 19:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not about economics. It's about typographic conventions. $\endgroup$ – 410 gone Sep 20 '16 at 19:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My advice would be to get a good style guide, such as the Chicago manual and follow its advice. $\endgroup$ – Ubiquitous♦ Sep 21 '16 at 20:31
5
$\begingroup$

Plamen Nikolov of Binghamton University presents a brief treatment of this in "Writing Tips For Economics Research Papers". He notes that there are two basic rules of economic usage:

"Long run" (without a hyphen) is a noun. "Long-run" (with a hyphen) is an adjective. Same with short(-)run. and "Saving" (without a terminal s) is a flow. "Savings" (with a terminal s) is a stock.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.