• 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • metabotropic receptors Above all this line of


    Above all, this line of research may contribute to distinguish with greater precision the economic systems of capitalism and socialism and to help diminish the strong dichotomy between the qualitative and quantitative analysis within economic science. One of the most important achievements to be pursued along the lines of this research is to interpret the socialist economic calculation problem as organized by Mises ([1920]1935) on the basis of the entire historical development of input–output economics for purposes of economic planning.
    Introduction In this paper, we make use of citation data obtained from four different sources in order to understand the current state and the changes in Robert Lucas\'s influence over the scientific community. The twenty-seven papers that Lucas published between 1967 (year of his first solo publication) and 1981 (the year before the emergence of Real Business Cycle approach) are analyzed. The list of papers we use here was obtained from Lucas\'s own public curriculum vitae. It is not trivial to define or measure something like intellectual influence. Any attempt to do it will be subject of heavy and meaningful criticism. This is not ignored here. However, for the sake of simplification, in this paper, it is postulated that if the paper (A) has more citations than paper (B), then (A) is more influential than (B). It is important to keep the limitations of this affirmation in the back of the mind. Citation data is certainly not a perfect proxy of influence. However, despite its flaws, we believe it can capture some aspects of intellectual influence. Even if a paper is cited in a negative context, this suggests that it perceived by the metabotropic receptors as relevant; otherwise, it would simply be ignored. Despite the polemical and controversial nature of many of Lucas\'s papers, the majority of the citations is certainly not of a negative type. Another justification for our approach: this paper does not use citation data in order to compare the influence of different authors from different epochs, approaches, fields, or languages. It is restricted to just one author\'s works, published in a very short period of time. This is a hypothesis – that citation captures some aspects of the concept influence – which one must feel comfortable with in order to read this paper, otherwise, it will be a meaningless effort.
    I – Lucas\'s influence Several works of great quality have investigated Lucas\'s contributions from different perspectives and approaches. Hall (1996), Fischer (1996), Svensson (1996) and Chari (1998), for instance, seek to explain metabotropic receptors in details the reasons why Lucas deserved his Nobel Prize by analyzing some of his most relevant articles and the influence it had on economics. They all highlight the use (and the consequences) of the rational expectations hypothesis, the equilibrium approach to business cycles and Lucas\'s econometric critique as the essence of his contributions to economic theory. Blinder (1987) and Vercelli (1991) analyze some aspects of the history of macroeconomics from the point of view of the methodological divergences between Lucas and Keynes. Silva (2013) and De Vroey (2010) develop their argumentation based on Lucas\'s personal archive available at Duke University in order to explain the emergence of some aspects of his theory. Buiter (1980), Laidler (2002), Hoover (1984, 1988), McCallum (1989) and Seidman (2005) choose a less personal approach, discussing Lucas\'s works in the context of the pros and cons of new classical economics. We choose a different strategy to understand Lucas: we try to construct our argumentation based on numbers. The data we collected provides us an interesting picture of Lucas\'s influence over the scholar community. Even though Bibilometrics and Scientometrics are well-established tools used also by economists, we are not familiar with any other paper that had done something similar to what we do here, so we believe that this is an original contribution to this topic of the History of Economic Thought. It is not easy to define what this thing called influence is, nor is it trivial to measure it, and citation data is certainly not a perfect proxy for it. However, citation data definitively captures some dimensions of the concept of influence [see Narin (1976), Zuckerman (1987), and Nicolaisen (2007)].