In their answer to the question Why economics does not believe in data/empirical evidence? SE main user/mod/dog emperor 1muflon1 linked this image from Angrist et al (2017):

enter image description here

My question is whether there has been any research to try to explain the differences (static or dynamic)1 between the 'econ branches', and if there are other interesting 'predictors' for which papers are empirical?

E.g.1.; the internet become widely available since the 80s and data gathering in case of online shopping seems much easier, so why is microeconomics refusing2 to greatly expand its empirical share?

E.g.2.; I have once read that paradigm shifts in academia occur by extinction, as researchers refuse to change their beliefs/mainstay methods much. (User Bakerstreet gave the original source as Max Planck.) Is there research on whether the age of the author influences whether the paper is empirical? Not sure how to treat multiauthor papers/papers with a small empirical section.

1By static or dynamic I mean differences in the (static) ratios of the current year are interesting, but also the differences in the (dynamic) change of the ratios during the last 35 years.

2I understand that microeconomics is not a living being with will and intent.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your quote in E.g.2 is from Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." $\endgroup$ Dec 21, 2023 at 11:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BakerStreet I love the original phrasing, thank you so much! $\endgroup$
    – Giskard
    Dec 21, 2023 at 13:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Giskard, I like even more this more succint version: "Science progresses one funeral at a time" :-). See hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14388/… $\endgroup$ Dec 21, 2023 at 14:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Credit where it's due! $\endgroup$
    – Giskard
    Dec 21, 2023 at 14:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don’t have some well researched answer for the main question but for the microeconomics part it’s likely a Simpsons paradox. Labor economics, public finance and development economics is 90% micro but are considered separate subfields because of the focus. If you would split from macro separate subjects such as economics of growth etc. you would probably also ended up with lower share of empirical papers. That’s the best guess of the dog emperor :) $\endgroup$
    – 1muflon1
    Dec 21, 2023 at 17:49


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.