|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2006‒07‒02
two papers chosen by Jonas Holmstrom Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Paul Gopuran Devassy Bino; Sasidharan Subash; Ananthakrishnan Ramanathan |
| Abstract: | This paper assesses the degree of author concentration in seven economics journals, which were published in India during 1990-2002. To measure the degree of author concentration, Lotka's Law was used. Moreover, we also make an exploratory analysis of the geographic, economics subfield and institutional concentration in 704 economics journals. An important finding of this paper is that specialized journals in the sample report the highest degree of author concentration. This result is quite similar to the findings by Cox and Chung (1991). Furthermore, there are several instances showing that the journals lean towards certain norms; this may affect the flow of innovative ideas into economics. We conclude that a knowledge activity, involving the high degree of concentration and a biased publication process, may affect the flow of new ideas into the discipline. |
| JEL: | A14 B50 B52 |
| Date: | 2005–12–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:liu:liucej:23&r=sog |
| By: | Aiyer Ghosh, Rishab (UNU-MERIT); Soete, Luc (UNU-MERIT) |
| Abstract: | The paper analyses the contribution of 'golden papers' - seminal works whose ideas remain as fresh and relevant today as when they were first published decades ago - and which continue to dominate academic discourse among successive generations of scholars. The authors analyse why two works written within an industrial development context: The simple economics of basic scientific research, by Richard Nelson (1959) and Kenneth Arrows Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention (1962), are so relevant in today’s knowledge-driven economic paradigm. Focusing on the papers’ application to current global policy debates on information/knowledge and intellectual property, they argue that while the context has changed the essential nature of innovation - driven by widespread access to the ability to replicate and improve - remains the same. Hence a focus on endogenous innovation policy is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. |
| Keywords: | knowledge economy, science and technology, innovation, intellectual property rights, institutional change |
| JEL: | O31 O34 O32 O17 |
| Date: | 2006 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:unumer:2006029&r=sog |