“Tendencies of recent economics and formation of economic paradigms”, AISPE-STOREP Session @ SIE 2026
67th Annual Conference – Italian Economic Association
Università di Cagliari, Palazzo Baffi, Campus Sant’Ignazio – Viale Sant’Ignazio da Laconi 74
Session 2, October 22, 2026 14:00 to 15:10
In an era characterized by a growing number of specializations and a variety of research programs, what effects does this situation have on the formation of economic knowledge? This fragmentation corresponds to a wide range of alternative theories and approaches. Typically, one can identify an orthodox perspective, a highly articulated mainstream — which benefits from innovations developed in other disciplines, such as behavioral economics — and a non-cohesive set of heterodox approaches (Post-Keynesian, Sraffian, Marxist-radical, Austrian, Institutional-evolutionary, social, feminist, and ecological). Starting from these considerations, the common thread of the three papers in this session is the analysis, conducted on different levels, of the state of economics as a discipline. Rather than providing a static map, the aim is to identify the dynamics that govern disciplinary change. The analysis of the New Palgrave dictionary (Bartoccini) makes it possible to understand the criteria of relevance through which the economist’s conceptual vocabulary is constructed. The use of Michael Freeden’s morphological approach (Ambrosino et al.) enables the identification of dynamics that characterize changes in research programs emerging from the center–periphery relationship. The interpretation of paradigm shifts as an institutional problem (Fiori), grounded in Douglass North’s framework, argues that the relationship between research rules and journals can be interpreted as a relationship between institutions and organizations.
The Making of The New Palgrave
Alberto Bartoccini, Università di Siena, a.bartoccini1@student.unisi.it
Abstract. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, published in 1987, represented a unique manifestation of organized collective reflection on the state of the discipline, shaped by the interactions between its three editors and a broad representation of leading economists. This paper offers a microhistory of the encyclopedia’s editorial process, based on the rich documentary record preserved in the Macmillan Archive and complemented by oral testimony from editor Murray Milgate. It examines how editorial vision and practice were embedded in a specific historical moment, shaped by its communication technologies, the structure of the academic publishing market, changing epistemic priorities, and ongoing transformations within economics, both at the theoretical level and in the evolving institutional hierarchy of the profession. The paper also highlights differences between the 1987 edition and subsequent editions in terms of historical context, editorial practices, and final contents, drawing on dedicated interviews conducted with the 2008 editors Steven Durlauf and Lawrence Blume. A defining feature of The New Palgrave was its emphasis on the origins of economic theories and doctrines. As these accounts were written largely by practicing economists rather than historians of the discipline, the paper examines the editorial strategies that ensured this historical dimension remained central to the project, and how the relationship between historical reflection and contemporary research was negotiated.
Epistemic Authority at an Age of Economics Fragmentation
Angela Ambrosino, Università di Torino, angela.ambrosino@unito.it
Mario Cedrini, Università di Torino, mario.cedrini@unito.it
Stefano Fiori, Università di Torino, stefano.fiori@unito.it
Alessandro Le Donne, Università di Torino, alessandro.ledonne@unito.it
Abstract. The recent literature on economics as a discipline tends to argue that among the presumed costs of pluralism is a loss of disciplinary identity with consequent decay of epistemic authority. To avoid this scenario, it is often argued, pluralism should be peripheral. Still, the current era in economics seems characterized by an unprecedented variety of research programs, showing the potentialities of economics’ new openness towards other disciplines and the potentially positive implications of the applied turn. To overcome the impasse, the article suggests that research programs be considered in their complexity, starting from the multiple dimensions that characterize them (methods and techniques, foundations and core assumptions, topics considered relevant, values associated with the approaches), which do not necessarily move in the same direction. We thus recommend, borrowing from Michael Freeden’s morphological approach to ideologies, that research programs be looked at as sets of core, adjacent, and peripheral concepts, with a view to emphasizing the possibilities of evolution and change that the proximity (the ability of concepts to define each other) and permeability (the extent to which research programs intersect by means of overlapping concepts) of such concepts ensure for the discipline’s future and present.
Journals as organizations. Institutional processes and change in economic knowledge
Stefano Fiori, Università di Torino, stefano.fiori@unito.it
Abstract. Journals undoubtedly play a fundamental role in shaping economic knowledge. Many articles have examined the pressure exerted by top economic journals and the journal ranking system on the direction of economic research. On the one hand, it has been emphasized that this favors the expansion of the mainstream at the expense of heterodox approaches and penalizes innovative research. On the other hand, authors such as Colander and colleagues have argued that the mainstream can change by embracing diverse methods and approaches. Therefore, the mainstream is no longer identifiable with the original orthodox approach. However, little attention has been paid to the specific mechanisms that determine the formation and change of economic knowledge, because analyses are often limited to demonstrating either the existence of institutional concentration (such as journals, departments, universities) or the protean nature of the mainstream. The analysis of institutional change proposed by Douglass North can provide a useful tool for understanding how economic knowledge changes through the interaction between institutions (such as research rules) and organizations (such as journals). The paper aims to investigate the relationship between top-down and bottom-up institutions by linking it to the phenomenon of growing specialization in economics.
Mario Cedrini