Skip to content

The Superiority of Economists

Paper: AEA · Authors: Fourcade, Ollion & Algan · Institution: UC Berkeley, Sciences Po

Problem & Motivation

Economists wield outsized influence in policy, media, and academic governance compared to other social scientists. Is this superiority meritocratic (better methods, stronger consensus) or structural (self-reinforcing institutional advantages)? The paper provides a sociological anatomy of economics' dominant position in the US academic hierarchy.

Method / Approach

The authors conduct a sociological analysis using multiple data sources: - Citation networks across economics, sociology, political science, and anthropology - Publication and PhD placement records from elite and non-elite departments - Survey data on disciplinary norms, hierarchies, and professional practices - Historical analysis of institutional development across the social sciences

They examine four dimensions: extradisciplinary citation patterns, intellectual hierarchy structure, elite concentration, and self-reinforcing dynamics.

Key Results

  1. Extradisciplinary citations — economics journals cite outside fields far less than other social sciences cite economics. Economics is an intellectual exporter, not importer.
  2. Intellectual hierarchy — economics maintains a more unitary disciplinary core than sociology or political science, with stronger consensus on methods and canonical knowledge.
  3. Elite concentration — the top 5 economics departments produce a disproportionate share of publications and PhDs, creating a tightly networked elite.
  4. Self-reinforcing dynamics — economics' objective supremacy (higher salaries, more publications, greater policy influence) fuels subjective authority and entitlement among economists, which in turn reproduces the hierarchy.

Contributions

  1. Systematic empirical documentation of economics' unique hierarchical structure
  2. Multi-dimensional analysis (citations, institutions, norms, influence)
  3. Identification of self-reinforcing feedback loops in academic prestige
  4. Critical perspective on the objectivity claims underlying economic policy advice
  5. Framework for understanding cross-disciplinary power asymmetries

Strengths

  • Rigorous empirical approach to a topic often debated anecdotally
  • Multiple data sources triangulate the findings convincingly
  • The self-reinforcing dynamic insight explains the persistence of the hierarchy
  • Published in economics' own Journal of Economic Perspectives — shows field-level self-reflection
  • Policy implications for research funding, peer review, and interdisciplinary collaboration

Weaknesses / Limitations

  • Data ends around 2012 (pre-publication lag for a 2015 paper) — misses recent trends
  • Focus on US academia limits generalizability to other national contexts
  • Does not deeply interrogate whether economics' methods actually are superior
  • Citation analysis may conflate quality with insularity
  • Limited attention to within-economics diversity (heterodox vs. mainstream)

Connections & Follow-ups

Part of a broader sociology-of-science literature (Bourdieu, Latour, Collins). Connects to contemporary debates about economics' failure to predict the 2008 financial crisis. Follow-up work has examined gender and racial dynamics within economics, the rise of behavioral economics as a challenge to the unitary core, and cross-national comparisons of economics' academic standing.

My Take

This paper holds up remarkably well a decade later. The citation insularity finding is the most striking — economics really does operate as an intellectual monoculture relative to its peer disciplines. The self-reinforcing hierarchy thesis is harder to prove but intuitively compelling. If anything, the trends have accelerated: elite concentration in top-5 departments is even more extreme today, and the replication crisis in psychology has further elevated economics' perceived methodological rigor. What the paper underemphasizes is the cost of this insularity — the failure to engage with other disciplines likely contributed to economics' blind spots around the 2008 crisis and continues to limit its relevance to pressing social issues.