1

A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE CONVERGENCE OF HETERODOX

ASSOCIATIONS

Resumo: O artigo analisa potenciais convergências teóricas e metodológicas compartilhadas por três

associações heterodoxas - Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), Union for Radical Political

Economics (URPE) e Association for Social Economics (ASE). Analisamos as proximidades na abordagem

e a potencialidade para teorias e métodos compartilhados com base em artigos publicados pelos principais

periódicos das associações entre 2010 e 2019. Usando bibliometria, os artigos são analisados em termos de

questões teóricas e metodológicas compartilhadas por essas associações heterodoxas. Nosso artigo conclui,

em primeiro lugar, que um possível ponto de convergência entre a AFEE, a URPE e a ASE são críticas ao

mainstream e à Nova Economia Institucional. Logo seria possível construir abordagens comuns baseadas

em tais críticas. Em segundo lugar, as críticas ao capitalismo e os estudos sobre o desenvolvimento

econômico poderiam servir de ponto de convergência para a AFEE e a URPE. Terceiro, a ASE parece ser

mais aberta a uma pluralidade de abordagens heterodoxas quando comparada a AFEE e a URPE, isso

poderia abrir espaço para outros pontos de convergência. No entanto, as díades ASE-AFEE e ASE-URPE

ainda não exploraram essas oportunidades de convergência.

Palavras-chave: Economia Institucional, Economia Política Radical, Socioeconomia, Economia

Heterodoxa, Bibliometria.

Códigos JEL: B50, B51, B52, B55

Abstract: This paper is a study on the possible common theoretical and methodological approaches shared

by three heterodox associations—Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), Union for Radical

Political Economics (URPE), and Association for Social Economics (ASE). We analyze their closeness and

potentially common approaches as reported in papers published by the associations’ main journals from

2010 to 2019. Using bibliometrics, the papers are analyzed in terms of convergent theoretical and

methodological issues shared by these heterodox associations. Our paper concludes, first, that building

alternative approaches based on a criticism of both mainstream and New Institutional Economics is a

possible point of convergence for AFEE, URPE, and ASE. Second, criticism of capitalism and studies on

economic development could act as a convergence point for AFEE and URPE. Third, ASE seems to be

more open to heterodox approaches than AFEE and URPE, and can make room for other convergence

points. However, the ASE-AFEE and ASE-URPE dyads have not yet explored such opportunities for

convergence.

Keywords: Institutional Economics, Radical Political Economics, Social Economics, Heterodox

Economics, Bibliometrics.

JEL Classification Codes: B50, B51, B52, B55

Área 1 - História do Pensamento Econômico e Metodologia

1.Introduction

From 1865 to 1909, the Allied Social Science Association (ASSA) was an association of birthing

disciplines in the United States: sociology, history, political science, statistics, and economics. The

American Economic Association (AEA), a part of the ASSA, dealt with economics (Coats 1985 and Dolfsma

2008). Over time, disciplines, as well as their associations, became more independent (Clary 2008 and

Dolfsma 2008). During the 1930s, the ASSA was revived, but became an “association of associations”

Felipe Almeida

Universidade Federal do Paraná

Victor Cruz-e-Silva

Universidade Federal de Uberlândia

Maríndia Brites

Fundação de Estudos Sociais

do Paraná

2

controlled by the AEA (Clary 2008)1. This paper relies on three associations that became members of the

AEA-led ASSA: the Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE), the Union for Radical Political

Economics (URPE), and the Association for Social Economics (ASE). The AFEE was created in 1967 by

Original Institutionalists who were dissatisfied with the mainstreaming of American economics by AEA.

The Original Institutionalists felt they had been sidelined by the AEA and its journal, the American

Economic Review (AER), as their papers were accepted neither for the AEA’s conference program nor for

the AER. The Original Institutionalists therefore decided to establish their own association, which led to the

creation of AFEE (Cavalieri and Almeida 2017). The URPE was a product of academic radicalism in the

United States. Left-leaning political economists were interested in an agenda involving social movements

associated with civil rights, antiwar, oppressed minorities, and intellectual movements that espoused

theoretical and policy issues that would challenge the status quo. The URPE was founded in 1968 (Mata

2014). The ASE was founded on a reformulation of the Catholic Economic Association (CEA), which

emerged in 1941, with the aim of introducing ethics into economic reality. Later, in 1970, the association

was renamed ASE in order to avoid any explicit connections with Christian ethics2. The annual meetings of the AFEE, the URPE, and the ASE take place at the huge ASSA conference

in early January. The most notable feature of the conference was that the AEA retained its dominant voice—

the AEA holds sway over the ASSA. According to AEA rules, the number of sessions of an association is

established according to the number of session attendees in the previous years—the ASSA uses the median

attendance at an association’s sessions over the preceding four years to determine whether that association

should retain, lose, or get additional sessions. These rules put heterodox associations in a difficult spot.

From the sociological perspective of mainstream economics, attendee-session rules are always likely to

result in fewer sessions assigned to heterodox associations. According to its sociological definition, the

word “mainstream” refers to ideas, concepts, and approaches that are held by the majority of individuals in

a profession (Dequech 2007; see also Colander et al. 2004). Hence, mainstream sessions would always

have more attendees than heterodox sessions. In such circumstances, combining forces has been deemed a

“survival strategy.” The main survival strategy thus would be to focus on the joint sessions, as they would

have attendees from more than one heterodox association. Another survival strategy is to hold a pre-ASSA

conference, the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics’ (ICAPE) meeting.

The ICAPE meeting is held in the same city as the ASSA conference, usually a day before; if the ASSA

conference is held early, the ICAPE meeting occurs a day after. The main purpose is to have another

forum—free from AEA rules—that allows ASSA heterodox attendees to interact3. These survival strategies

can be employed alongside Lee’s (2009) proposal to integrate the heterodox approaches. The goal of this paper is to study the closeness and potentially common approaches shared by the

AFEE, the URPE, and the ASE by analyzing studies by members of these associations in the last decade

from 2010 to 20194. The AFEE publishes the Journal of Economic Issues (JEI), the URPE the Review of

Radical Political Economics (RRPE), and the ASE the Review of Social Economy (ROSE)5. We performed

a bibliometric analysis of the papers published by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE in order to examine what areas of

interest, theories, and approaches have been dealt with by members of the AFEE, the URPE, and the ASE

in these journals. Our sample comprises data from the Scopus database. Commensurability among the three

journals was one of our main concerns. Because of this, we relied on data from 2010 to 2019, since the

information about the ROSE papers prior to 2010 appears to be inaccurate; the data after 2010 also provide

1 From 1865 to 1909, the association was called the Allied Social Science Association. In the 1930s, at the time of its revival, its

name changed to Allied Social Science Associations—plural—to denote its change to “an association of associations.” 2 We retrieved information regarding the association’s renaming from its website (https://socialeconomics.org/about/history/) on

October 25, 2020. 3 It should be noted that some kind of pre- or post-conference meetings was important for heterodox initiatives in the past as

well. The group that founded the AFEE organized “rump sessions” after the ASSA conference. The same is true in relation to the

organization of the Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT)—an offspring of the AFEE. During the 1970s, Original

Institutionalists were dissatisfied with the rump sessions organized by the AFEE at the Western Social Science Association

(WSSA), which supported the creation of the AFIT (Almeida, 2016). 4 We have assumed that papers published in a journal sponsored by a heterodox association reflect the economics favored by the

association’s membership. 5 The ASE also publishes the Forum for Social Economics. However, as we are comparing heterodox journals, we confined our

analysis to journals that started with the foundation of the association. In the case of the ASE, this is ROSE.

3

a good idea of the currently debated issues in the journals. After data collection, we conducted a pre-analysis

organization of the database. Analysis was performed using the bibliometrix package in R Studio (see Aria

and Cuccurullo 2017).

In the next section, we analyze the cross-fertilization between JEI, RRPE, and ROSE, as well as the

journals referenced by them. We performed this exercise through an examination of the most frequently

cited journals in the papers published in each journal. In the third section of this paper, we present a thematic

map for each of our journals of interest based on their papers’ most common keywords; an examination of

keywords gives us an idea of the content of the papers. The fourth section is a description of co-citation

networks based on studies frequently cited together. In a co-citation network, the most common pairs of

cited studies are placed together in clusters that illustrate the most common references. The references in a

cluster represent the most relevant references for a journal’s particular theme. This paper closes with a few

concluding remarks.

2.Most Cited Sources

Based on the journals most cited by the papers published in JEI, RRPE, and ROSE from 2010 to

2019, the Most Cited Sources allows us to examine: (1) the cross-fertilization among papers published by

JEI, RRPE, and ROSE; and (2) the shared references (papers from other journals) that we assume to be an

indicator of convergence in analytical bases6. In Table 1, we summarize the data on the most cited journals.

Table 1 also gives the ranked list of the top 20 most cited journals and the percentage of citations for each

of the top 20 journals within papers published by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE from 2010 to 20197.

Table 1 - Top 20 Most Cited Journals

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 1 shows that there are similar features in the journals cited by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE. The

most cited journal in each case is the journal itself. Papers published by JEI were cited most frequently by

papers published in JEI, at 40.12%. The same is true of both RRPE (27.39%) and ROSE (18.25%).

Additionally, there are mainstream journals in the top 20s of all three journals. As the upper half of Table

6 By common references, we mean the economics viewpoint promoted by the journals that published the papers, and not the

papers themselves. 7 Percentages in Table 1 do not refer to the entire universe of journals that published papers cited by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE.

Percentages indicate exclusively the representativeness of the top 20 journals whose papers were cited by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE.

Hence, the percentages refer only to data from the top 20 journals.

Source of cited papers % Source of cited papers % Source of cited papers %

1. Journal of Economic Issues 40.12 Review of Radical Political Economics 27.39 Review of Social Economy 18.25

2. American Economic Review 10.95 Cambridge Journal of Economics 13.57 American Economic Review 10.88

3. Quarterly Journal of Economics 6.19 American Economic Review 8.29 Quarterly Journal of Economics 7.14

4. Cambridge Journal of Economics 6.06 Capital 4.68 Journal of Economic Perspectives 6.91

5. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4.34 Journal of Economic Issues 4.68 Economic Journal 6.16

6. Journal of Political Economy 4.13 Quarterly Journal of Economics 3.96 World Development 4.95

7. Economic Journal 3.76 Monthly Review 3.36 Cambridge Journal of Economics 4.89

8. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 3.56 Economic Journal 3.18 Journal of Political Economy 4.89

9. Journal of Economic Literature 3.08 Journal of Economic Perspectives 3.12 Journal of Economic Issues 4.84

10. Journal of Institutional Economics 2.67 Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 2.82 Journal of Economic Literature 4.55

11. American Journal of Sociology 2.11 Review of Political Economy 2.76 Journal of Business Ethics 4.09

12. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1.87 Science Society 2.76 Journal of Public Economics 3.17

13. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 1.69 Economy and Society 2.58 American Sociological Review 3.05

14. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1.41 Metroeconomica 2.52 Econometrica 2.88

15. Review of Radical Political Economics 1.41 New Left Review 2.52 American Journal of Sociology 2.71

16. History of Political Economy 1.39 World Development 2.52 Journal for Scientific Study of Religion 2.71

17. Review of Political Economy 1.39 Review of International Political Economy 2.40 Academy of Management Review 2.25

18. Review of Social Economy 1.30 Journal of Economic Literature 2.34 Economica 2.01

19. World Development 1.30 Economic and Political Weekly 2.28 Journal of Economic Behavior Organization 1.84

20. Ecological Economics 1.26 Journal of Political Economy 2.22 Journal of Economic Education 1.84

Journal of Economic Issues Review of Radical Political Economics Review of Social Economy

4

1 indicates, mainstream journals enjoy a strong presence among the top 10 most cited journals. The JEI’s

top 10 includes six mainstream journals, while RRPE’s includes four, and ROSE’s includes six. In terms of

percentage, 32.45% of JEI citations in the top 20 most cited journals are to mainstream journal papers.

Papers published by JEI itself account for 40.12%, while 27.43% of the papers cited in JEI are from other

heterodox journals. In the case of RRPE, 23.12% of cited papers are mainstream and 49.19% are from

heterodox journals; 27.39% of RRPE papers are published by RRPE itself. Of the papers cited in ROSE,

40.53% are from mainstream journals, 41.22% are from others heterodox journals, and 18.25% are from

ROSE itself. It is interesting to notice that, within this classification, the most common references in JEI,

RRPE, and ROSE are studies published in mainstream journals. Among mainstream journals, the AER is the most frequently represented. The AER is the second

most cited journal in JEI and ROSE (10.95% and 10.88%, respectively), and the third in RRPE (8.29%).

This may be explained by the following hypotheses. Hypothesis #1: as the AER is a long-standing journal,

many of the papers cited were published in the first half of the 20th century, when economics in the United

States was far more pluralistic; heterodox approaches could therefore be accommodated in the AER (see

Morgan and Rutherford 1998)8. Hypothesis #2: AER papers are frequently cited in order to evaluate

heterodox opinions critically, or, in some cases, heterodox approaches deal with a mainstream perspective

in parallel with the introduction of an alternative perspective. This applies to the Quarterly Journal of

Economics, the Economic Journal, and the Journal of Political Economy as well; these too are long-life

mainstream journals that are present in the top three rankings. There are two other mainstream journals, the

Journal of Economic Perspectives and the Journal of Economic Literature, which figure in the rankings.

As the former was created in 1987 and the latter in 1969 and both have always been sponsored by the AEA,

only the second hypothesis applies in their case.

A possible explanation for the references to mainstream journal papers lies in the nature of the

literature on heterodox economics. For instance, Davis (2008) advances the view that the heterodox

approach arises from a rejection of core mainstream ideas, which may be summarized as (1) rationality, (2)

methodological individualism, and (3) equilibrium. In general, heterodox economics is based on (A)

institutions, (B) history, and (C) socially embedded individuals, all of which contradict mainstream

positions as expressed in (1), (2), and (3) (Davis, 2008). However, to delineate the conflict among (1), (2),

and (3) and (A), (B), and (C), heterodox studies need to refer to orthodox papers; thus, Davis’s (2008)

theory reinforces our hypothesis #2. Wrenn’s (2007) and Mearman’s (2011) empirical studies on heterodox

economics present similar conclusions. The former interviewed historians of economics, while the latter

carried out a questionnaire survey among members of the Association for Heterodox Economics (AHE).

Wrenn’s (2007) and Mearman’s (2011) results suggest that heterodox economics is a rejection or a criticism

of mainstream economics, but that in rejecting or criticizing mainstream economics, a set of alternative

ideas is offered 9 . Lee (2009, 2011, and 2012) called these positive alternatives. From a technical

perspective, dealing with mainstream papers to build their own analysis can be seen as a bad strategy for

heterodox approaches, because citing papers published in mainstream journals result in making these

journals more representative in terms of “impact factor.” However, in order to build an unconventional

approach, references to the conventional approach may be mandatory or illustrative; thus, Lee’s theory also

reinforces our hypothesis #2. The significant presence of mainstream journals among the citations in the

8 For example, two of AFEE’s founding members, Clarence Ayres and Allan Gruchy, had papers published in the AER—see

Ayres (1951 and 953) and Gruchy (1939 and 1958). 9 Wrenn (2007) is a study on the consistency among historians of economic thought about what constitutes heterodox economics.

Mearman (2011) is an empirical exercise on the nature of heterodox economics. Indeed, the definition and nature of heterodox

thought is not clear, and there is no single definition for the term “heterodox” (Wrenn 2007). Nevertheless, there has been some

degree of convergence in the literature, according to which one of the defining features of heterodoxy is to provide a critical

perspective to mainstream economics. Backhouse (2000 and 2004), Colander et al. (2004), and Dequech (2007) have established

a sociological way to identify heterodox studies: heterodoxy is that which diverges from mainstream economics, which comprises

the ideas that the profession’s elite considers acceptable and dominant in the main academic institutions, organizations and

scientific journals. Lawson (2004 and 2006) and Davis (2008), alternatively, use a more ontological perspective to define the

nature of heterodox economics. Lawson (2004 and 2006) argues that the antagonism of heterodox economics to contributions

from the mainstream manifests itself through a rejection of the deductivist method. Davis’s (2008) perspective has been stated

at the beginning of this paragraph.

5

JEI, RRPE, and ROSE, therefore, is not unusual and may be seen as logical; we can, hence, affirm that the

literature on heterodox economics supports Hypothesis #2. There are three heterodox journals in all three rankings: World Development, Cambridge Journal

of Economics (CJE), and the JEI. World Development is a thematic journal with and interdisciplinary slant

that promotes global economic development. World development is a shared theme running through the

papers published by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE. However, it is important to note that World Development ranks

19th (1.3%) in the JEI’s ranking, 16th (2.52%) in RRPE’s, and sixth (4.95%) in ROSE’s. The CJE is, in fact,

more representative than World Development, as it ranks fourth (6.06%) in JEI’s ranking, second (13.57%)

in RRPE’s, and seventh (4.89%) in ROSE’s. The fact that the JEI features in all three rankings means that

authors of the papers published in both RRPE and ROSE take into consideration AFEE’s studies when

drafting their own papers. The JEI ranks fifth (4.68%) in RRPE’s list of rankings and ninth (4.84%) in

ROSE’s. It is possible that there is some cross-fertilization, as both RRPE and ROSE are in JEI’s ranking

as well. The RRPE ranks 15th (1.41%), while ROSE ranks 18th (1.3%) in JEI’s ranking. However, there is

no cross-fertilization between RRPE and ROSE as far as the top 20 most cited journals is concerned10.

In summary, the ranking of the top 20 most cited journals by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE show that (1)

papers published by mainstream journals are a shared source of reference, and the creation of a heterodox

approach based on a rejection or a criticism of mainstream economics can be a convergent issue among all

three journals, and (2) there is cross-fertilization between JEI and RRPE, and JEI and ROSE; however,

there is no noticeable cross-fertilization between RRPE and ROSE.

3.Thematic Maps

The thematic maps for each journal, presented in Figure 1, confirm our perception thus far. Thematic

maps are based on the keywords of the papers published in each journal. Keywords are the terms that best

describe the content of papers, as they represent authors’ self-identification of their research. Thus, thematic

maps build clusters of co-occurring keywords in a group of papers. Accordingly, co-occurring keywords

form clusters, and these clusters form a network.

In our case, the thematic map is a visual aid that allows us to organize papers based on how the

authors self-identify their research, and, further, how their research present itself within the network of each

journal. The clusters in the thematic map are plotted as spheres that represent specific themes based on two

axes: density and centrality. Density, the vertical axis, indicates the internal strength of a particular cluster

in relation to the other clusters of co-occurring keywords in the papers published by the journal. It is

characterized by the strength of the connections between keywords. Density is, therefore, a measure of the

internal cohesion of a theme, as the strength of a cluster is associated with the frequency of a certain group

of keywords being placed together. A high-density theme indicates that a group of keywords is frequently

associated with the same papers (Callon, Courtial, and Laville 1991; Cobo et al. 2011).

Centrality, the horizontal axis, on the other hand, measures how a theme relates to other themes

within a network. Accordingly, as it points out to the external ties between themes, centrality measures the

relevance of a theme in the development of a research field (Callon, Courtial, and Laville 1991; Cobo et al.

2011). Hence, the thematic map plots two kind of relationship among keywords: the strength of the

connections between keywords within a group (density) and among groups (centrality). Consequently, there

are four quadrants. The upper-right quadrant indicates high density and high centrality, which represents

the motor themes of the journal. The upper-left quadrant presents high density and low centrality, and

represents specialized themes, as these clusters have strong internal connections but weak external

connections. The lower-left quadrant, marked by marginal and weakly developed themes, portrays low

density and low centrality, which answers for emerging or declining themes. Finally, the lower-right

quadrant indicates high centrality and low density; hence, clusters in this quadrant are transversal and

10 Table 1 also highlights the fact that JEI, RRPE, and ROSE have specific references to each journal. JEI’s ranking points to

journals associated with Original Institutionalism (Journal of Institutional Economics, 10th position, 2.67%) and evolutionism

(Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12th position, 1.87%). RRPE’s ranking refers to journals related to radicalism, such as

Capital (4th position, 4.68%) and New Left Review (5th position, 2.52%). ROSE’s ranking includes journals about ethics (Journal

of Business Ethics, 11th position, 4.09%) and sociological issues (American Sociological Review, 13th position, 3.05%; American

Journal of Sociology, 15th position, 2.72%). Additionally, ROSE is an interdisciplinary journal that shows a more eclectic top 20

of most cited journals per field.

6

represent the basic themes of the journal, that is, those themes of great importance but low development

(Cobo et al. 2011).

Figure 1 – Thematic maps

Thematic Map of the Journal of Economic Issues

Thematic Map of the Review of Radical Political Economics

Thematic Map of the Review of Social Economy

Source: Elaborated by the authors

In Figure 1, we find two of JEI’s motor theme clusters in the upper-right quadrant. One cluster is

composed of the keywords “development,” “gender,” and “entrepreneurship” and the other is associated

with “sustainability.” The RRPE’s motor theme clusters are “development,” “globalization,” and

“precarious work.” Two of ROSE’s motor theme clusters are “justice” and “trust.” Based on the keywords

in ROSE’s motor themes clusters, it is difficult to see a connection with the JEI’s and the RRPE’s motor

themes; in fact, there does not appear to be any connection between the JEI’s and the RRPE’s clusters. In

order to uncover a connection, we could assume that the keywords “justice” and “trust” are associated with

“development”; however, as “development” is not in any of ROSE’s clusters, this assumption would be

7

inaccurate. A cluster composed of one keyword only in the upper-right quadrant suggests that the keyword

in questions highlights a motor theme, with no association with other keywords. Hence, we may assume

that “justice” and “trust” are ROSE’s motor themes, while “sustainability” is a motor theme in JEI, but we

cannot make any further assumptions. The motor themes suggest a possible thematic connection between the JEI and the RRPE, as

“development,” “gender,” and “entrepreneurship” comprise a cluster in the former and “development,”

“globalization,” and “precarious work” in the latter. We could assume that “development” is an important

issue in both journals, but each employs different theoretical perspectives. The JEI papers focus on gender

and entrepreneurship. Gender has been used by Original Institutionalists since Veblen to study the

consequences of a sexist and patriarchal society. Entrepreneurship has also been a subject of analysis since

the start of critical business analysis. If we combine all three keywords, we could understand the motor

themes to refer to the gender dimension in entrepreneurial activity and its association with development.

We believe that Warnecke’s papers are a good illustration (see Warnecke 2013 and 2017, and Padgett and

Warnecke 2011) of this relationship. Regarding the RRPE clusters, in addition to “development,” we find

the keywords “globalization” and “precarious work,” which could indicate a radical perspective on

economic development. According to this viewpoint, development may be perceived as a worldwide

production structure that affects labor conditions, as described in De Angelis and Harvie (2008) and Ricci

(2019). Thus, one of the motor themes of the JEI and the RRPE could offer a possible thematic convergence

point. However, the theoretical approaches of the two journals are not the same. In the JEI thematic map, we find a cluster at the borderline between the upper-right and upper-left

quadrants. The cluster is composed of “monetary policy,” “vested interests,” and “fiscal policy,” which

may be interpreted as both motor and specialized themes having internal connections with the cluster, as

well as connections with keywords outside the cluster. Another specialized theme in JEI covers “income

inequality,” “power,” and “full employment,” while yet another one includes only one keyword—

“economic policy.” In the RRPE thematic map, there are four clusters of specialized themes; their keywords

are: (1) “capitalism” and “class struggle,” (2) “heterodox economics” and “India,” (3) “austerity,” and (4)

“sustainability” and “climate change.” It is clear that there is no similarity between JEI’s specialized themes

and those of RRPE. However, one of the JEI’s motor themes is based on the keyword “sustainability,”

while one of RRPE’s specialized themes includes “sustainability” and “climate change.” Therefore, we may

conclude that sustainability is a relevant subject in both journals. In RRPE, however, it is associated with a

debate on climate change. ROSE’s only specialized cluster comprises the single keyword “exploitation,”

which renders it difficult to conduct an analysis of the entire cluster. In the lower-left quadrant of the JEI thematic map, there are three clusters: (1) “uncertainty,”

“complexity,” and “John R. Commons;” (2) “social provisioning,” and (3) “Russia.” We may conclude that

these are the emerging or declining themes in JEI. RRPE shows analytical stability in terms of themes as

there are no emerging or declining themes in the journal (its lower-left quadrant is empty). In ROSE, the

emerging or declining themes are: (1) “happiness,” “poverty,” and “identity,” and (2) “religion,” “social

capital,” and “institutions.” We believe that emerging or declining themes cannot be used to indicate

connection among journals. It is possible to argue that there is a ROSE cluster of emerging or declining

themes composed of the keyword “institutions,” as well as a JEI cluster in the lower-right quadrant.

However, the ROSE cluster comprises “religion,” “social capital,” and “institutions,” whereas the JEI

cluster includes “institutions,” “regulation,” and “evolutionary economics.” If we consider all three words

that comprise each cluster, it is clear that these refer to different kinds of themes. In this regard, it is worth

noting that the analysis of clusters located in the lower-left quadrant of a thematic map represents an

evaluation of the themes that are either rising toward the core of or disappearing from each journal’s

discussed issues. As the lower-left quadrant is identified by low density and low centrality, a theme located

in that quadrant is marked by weak connections within itself and loose ties between that cluster and other

clusters in the network. This means that themes associated with those keywords are becoming either

stronger or weaker—unfortunately, we cannot affirm if the cluster in the lower-left quadrant is emerging

or declining. Hence, by ignoring lower-left quadrant clusters, we are able to obtain a more accurate picture

of the type of papers published by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE. Finally, clusters in the lower-right quadrant indicate the traditional themes of the journals. Indeed,

the following traditional themes in institutional economics are evident from the JEI clusters: (1)

8

“institutions,” “regulation,” and “evolutionary economics,” (2) “institutional economics,” “culture,” and

“property rights,” and (3) “Veblen,” “inequality,” and “financial crisis.” This is also valid for the RRPE

clusters, which highlight (1) “democracy,” “commons,” and “privatization,” (2) “neoliberalism,”

“financialization,” and “Marx,” and (3) “inequality,” “gender,” and “crisis,” all of which reflect radical

economics issues11. ROSE has just one traditional analytical cluster, composed of “ethics” and “welfare,”

which refer to issues in Social Economics. Compared to JEI and RRPE, the range of ROSE’s traditional

themes is blatantly narrower. There may be a possible connection between one of JEI’s traditional theme

clusters, “Veblen,” “inequality,” and “financial crisis,” and one of RRPE’s, “inequality,” “gender,” and

“crisis.” Both share the keyword “inequality” and, to a lesser extent, “crisis.” As the RRPE cluster associates

“inequality,” “gender,” and “crisis,” it probably does not have an explicit relation with financial matters.

As previously discussed, “gender” is one of the JEI’s motor themes, as well as a keyword in the JEI’s

specialized cluster, along with “income inequality.” We may therefore conclude that “gender” is associated

with both JEI and RRPE clusters—a motor theme in the former and a traditional theme in the latter. Both

JEI and RRPE present traditional theme clusters that relate to the keyword “inequality,” and “income

inequality” is part of a JEI’s specialized theme cluster.

In summary, thematic maps based on keyword co-occurrence allow us to identify possible

connections between the analytical themes in JEI and RRPE. These connections refer to themes related to

development, sustainability, inequality, crisis, and gender, which can be understood as developmental

issues. Nonetheless, it should be noted that these themes are approached from different theoretical

perspectives and may differ in nature—being a motor theme to one perspective and a traditional theme to

the other. Hence, a thematic convergence between the AFEE and the URPE seems possible. The ROSE

thematic map, however, does not suggest any possible convergence with JEI or RRPE. A possible

explanation is that ROSE is more thematically specialized, having just six clusters, while JEI has ten and

RRPE has nine. ROSE thus seems to be a specialized journal, which leads us to conclude that there is little

room for a possible thematic convergence between ASE and either AFEE or URPE.

4.Co-citation Networks

In this paper, we also analyze the references by creating co-citation networks of papers published

in JEI, RRPE, and ROSE from 2010 to 2019 using bibliometrics. A co-citation network comprises studies

frequently cited together by the most common pairs of cited studies, and constructs clusters of the most

common references (Small 1973). Thus, the references included in a cluster in a co-citation network are the

most relevant references on a particular topic in a journal. By examining the co-citation networks of JEI,

RRPE, and ROSE, we are able to draw conclusions about their theoretical or analytical backgrounds and,

thereby, identify possible issues of convergence12.

11 The keyword “commons” among the RRPE’s traditional themes has no relation with the Original Institutionalist John R.

Commons, but with common resources. 12 The software and the package used to create the co-citation networks, R-Studio and bibliometrix, respectively (see Aria and

Cuccurullo 2017), provide the reference by last name of the first author and year. For example, in the JEI network, Nelson R. R.

1982-2 refers to Nelson and Winter (1982). The “-2” in 1982-2 means that at least one other study published by Nelson in 1982

(1982-1) was cited in the JEI. Thus, the years of reference appear differently in the figures and in the text. In the JEI network,

for instance, Veblen’s “Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” is referred to as Veblen T. 1898-1, while in the text it

appears as Veblen (1898a).

9

Figure 2 – Co-citation Network of the Journal of Economic Issues

Source: Elaborated by the authors

The JEI co-citation network is shown in Figure 2. At the center of Figure 2, we find the seminal

works of Veblen (1899) and Commons (1924), the founding fathers of Institutional Economics—The

Theory of the Leisure Class and Legal Foundations of Capitalism, respectively. However, Veblen (1899)

and Commons (1924) are located in different clusters. The first is in the same cluster as Veblen (1898a,

1898b, 1904, 1914, 1919, 1921, and 1923), Commons (1931), Galbraith (1967), Lawson (2003), and Brown

(2008)13. It is clear from this cluster that many of JEI’s papers strongly rely on Veblenian writings as a

theoretical background. Reliance on Veblen’s writings is the strongest feature of this cluster. The remaining

co-cited references in the cluster are discussions or updates of Veblenian arguments. For example,

Commons (1931) is a seminal paper on institutions and associated concepts, Galbraith (1967) provides

post-war analysis of business, Lawson (2003) describes heterodox methods of analysis in economics, and

Brown (2008) offers an Original Institutionalist perspective of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. Hence,

we may consider this cluster to be the Veblenian cluster. The cluster that includes Commons (1924) also comprises another work by John Commons (1934),

two Ronald Coase papers (1937 and 1960), two books by Oliver Williamson (1975 and 1985), two books

by the historian of economics Malcolm Rutherford (1994 and 2001), Demsetz (1967), Granovetter (1985),

Knight (1921), and Nelson and Winter (1982)14. Commons was the first to move “transactions” to the

forefront of his institutional analysis. Decades later, Williamson highlighted the fact that Coase presents a

new institutional perspective. Williamson also centered his analysis on “transactions,” but from a liberal

and non-reformist standpoint; his position is therefore very different from Commons. This cluster thus

comprises Commons (1924 and 1934), studies from New Institutional Economics (Coase 1937 and 1960,

and Williamson 1975 and 1985), Rutherford (1994), who distinguishes between Original and New

Institutionalism, and Granovetter (1985), who provides a critique of Williamson’s Institutionalism. This

cluster is therefore not fully Commonsian, but we may assume that it deals with issues on which

Commons’s analysis is based, that is, this cluster deals with both references cited in JEI papers on

Commonsian themes and criticisms of Williamson’s approach15.

13 Veblen T. 1898-1 and Veblen T. 1898-2 in Figure 2 refer to Veblen (1898a) and Veblen (1898b), respectively. 14 Nelson R. R. 1982-2 in Figure 2 refers to Nelson and Winter (1982). 15 Demsetz (1967) is a seminal mainstream paper about property rights, an economic issue deeply related to transactions—a

Commonsian concern. Knight’s (1921) position in the cluster seems to be associated with the JEI papers that deal with

comparisons between Original and New Institutional Economics and those that refer to Knight (1921)—such as Spithoven (2019)

and Baudry and Chassagnon (2019). We believe that Nelson and Winter (1982) is justifiably a part of this cluster because of the

JEI papers that (1) criticize their approach—such as Jo (2019) and, (2) offer an encompassing evolutionary approach embracing

both the Nelson and Winter and the Commonsian perspectives—as in Elsner, Hocker, and Schwardt (2010). Furthermore,

10

In Figure 2, we find a reference to another New Institutionalist, Douglass North. The left cluster

comprises North (1981, 1990, and 2005), Ostrom (1990 and 2005), Hodgson (2006), Sen (1999),

Schumpeter (1934), Lawson (1997), Rutherford (2001), and Dugger (1990). These studies suggest that the

main theme in this cluster is a criticism of the development perspective of New Institutional Economics,

which is different from the transitional perspective of the previous cluster, which is why we have two

separate clusters. This cluster includes William Dugger’s paper, which is a critique of the New

Institutionalist approach to development from an Original Institutionalist perspective 16 . In such a

perspective, Douglass North’s and Elinor Ostrom’s studies are the targets of criticism. This cluster also

includes studies on development, such as Schumpeter (1934) and Sen (1999). This suggests that the JEI

papers use references comparing Schumpeter’s and Sen’s perspectives on Institutional Economics (Wunder

2007, Brown 2009 and Martins 2015)17. Figure 2 also includes another cluster in the left. Five of the seven references within this cluster are

clearly related to members of the Cactus Branch: Ayres (1944 and 1961), Bush (1987), Neale (1987), and

Hayden (2006). The Cactus Branch was the most cohesive group of Original Institutionalists in the mid-

20th century. Clarence Ayres was the charismatic leader of the group, which was based in the U.S.

Southwest (see Sturgeon 1981 and Cavalieri and Almeida 2017)18. Elsner’s study (2012) is not a Cactus

Branch study, but it discusses one of its themes: the ceremonial-instrumental dichotomy. Hodgson’s study

(2004) is not a Cactus Branch study either, as it discusses the Original Institutionalist concept of habits,

which refers not just to the Cactus Branch, but to Veblenian Institutionalism in general. Hence, papers that

use these references are likely to be studies in line with Cactus Branch Institutionalism. Furthermore, the

right cluster in Figure 2 comprises Keynes (1936), Polanyi (1944), Minsky (1986), Friedman (1952),

Hodgson (1999), Smith (1776), Piketty (2014), and Mirowski (1989). The unifying theme running through

these studies is that these are all critiques of the capitalist system and the way neoclassical economics

understands and deals with it. Figure 2 indicates that the JEI papers can be divided into five well-defined theme clusters: (1)

Veblenian Institutionalism as a theoretical basis; (2) Commonsian themes, including the criticism of

Williamson’s institutional approach to transactions; (3) criticisms of the developmental perspective of New

Institutional Economics; this cluster also includes papers on economic development; (4) Cactus Branch

Institutionalism; and (5) criticisms of both capitalism and the neoclassical approach to it. Cluster (5)

reinforces our previous finding based on the most cited sources: rejection or criticism of mainstream

economics is often used to introduce heterodox perspectives.

As in the case of JEI, RRPE co-citation network also comprises five clusters (Figure 3).

Rutherford (2001) is excellent for his history of Institutional Economics from 1918 to 1947. Chapter 7, which deals with

Wisconsin Institutionalism, is a very good source of information on Commons, his colleagues, and students. 16 To note, Dugger (1990) has been included here because he is a part of the references in this cluster, not because Dugger was

published by JEI. Dugger (1990) is not part of our sample, which only deals with papers published from 2010 to 2019. However,

the papers in our sample cite Dugger (1990), in addition to the other studies in the same cluster. 17 Hodgson (2006), Lawson (1997), and Rutherford (2001) are also part of the “development” cluster, but they comprise the

supporting literature. Hodgson (2006) discusses concepts of organization and institutions as defined by North, including e-mails

exchanged between Hodgson and North; Hodgson (2006) provides an institutional conceptualization according to New

Institutional Economics. Rutherford (2001) seems to be in line with Hodgson (2006): Rutherford’s paper deals with the history

of Original Institutionalism and its difference from the new perspective. Lawson (1997) also deals with the history of economic

ideas, but his description is more encompassing than Rutherford’s (2001), as Lawson (1997) is more about the evolution of

economics in a general sense. 18 Cactus Branchers were in close and continuous contact. The Southwestern Social Science Association and the Southwestern

Social Science Quarterly acted as forums for the exchange and dissemination of their ideas. Later, several Cactus Branchers

were central to the foundation of the AFEE and the JEI (see Sturgeon 1981, and Cavalieri and Almeida 2017).

11

Figure 3 – Co-citation Network of the Review of Radical Political Economics

Source: Elaborated by the authors

At the center of Figure 3, Marx (1867) stands out, next to Marx (1857), both of Marx’s seminal works,

Grundrisse and Das Kapital19. Other references present in this cluster are based, almost exclusively, either

on the Marxist approach or on comments on Marx’s writings, for example, Rosdolsky (1977), who analyzes

the theoretical and methodological aspects of Marx’s Grundrisse. Harvey (1982, 2005, 2014), Weeks

(1981), and Amin (1976) analyze the nature, problems, failures, and contradictions of capitalism. Sraffa

(1960) criticizes marginalism and Kautsky (1899) relates agriculture to capital, based on Marxist theory.

Quick (2004) and Munck (2013) discuss the term "precariousness" and domestic labor, respectively, and

Jossa (2005) defends the cooperative as a new production mode. Vanek (1970) and Arrighi (1994) deal with

labor management and capitalism in the 20th century and are depicted by RRPE papers as close to Marxist

theory20. We may thus assume that this cluster is composed of papers based on Marxist theory. Keynes

(1936) is also a reference in the cluster, but no straightforward conclusion can be drawn from this fact, as

there are papers that approach Keynesian economics critically, and this could suggest a convergence

between the Post Keynesian and Marxist perspectives.

At the center of Figure 3, under Marx (1867), we find Harvey (2005), which is the main reference of

another cluster. We believe that this cluster is based on the analysis of capitalism from a Marxist perspective.

Gill (1995), Bowles, Edward and Roosevelt (2005), Harvey (2005; 2010), Gibson-Graham (2006), Glyn

(2006), Kotz (2009), Duménil & Lévy (2011), and McNally (2011) analyze the history, failures, and crisis

of the capitalist system. There is a special focus on the study of neoliberalism after the 2008 sub-prime

mortgage crisis, offering alternatives to global capitalism. Chibber (2003) and Fine (2010) provide

explanations for the failures of the developmental state in post-colonial India and criticize the theory of

social capital, respectively. These analyses also rely on a Marxist perspective. Kalecki’s (1954) Marxist

view of effective demand, dynamics, and structure of capitalism is also part of this cluster21.

19 In order to avoid underestimating the role of Marx’s Das Kapital the network—a book that has multiple volumes published

over a number of years—we categorized them all as Marx (1867). Accordingly, Marx (1867) represents all the references to

Marx’s magnum opus, regardless of the specific volume referenced. 20 For example, Miller (2012), Jossa (2014 and 2016) and Errasti, Bretos, and Nunez (2017) quote Vanek (1970) to explain the

cooperatives managed by workers in a capitalist system. Financialization and the rentier economy problems addressed by Arrighi

(1994) are considered by Teixeira and Rotta (2012), Vernengo and Fields (2012), Davis (2017 and 2018) and Fernández, Ebenau

and Bazza (2017) as near-Marxist theories. 21 It is possible to assign Lee’s (2009) history of heterodox economics, which encompasses Marxism, to this cluster. Our

hypothesis is that Lee (2009) is part of the cluster because his history of dissenting approaches is a great supporting reference

for Marxist analyses of capitalism based on history. Our point is that Lee’s (2009) inclusion in the cluster means that RRPE

papers included in this cluster deal with the history of capitalism against the history of Marxist ideas.

12

In addition, at the center of Figure 3, under Harvey (2005), we find Polanyi (1944), who is part of yet

another cluster within the RRPE co-citation network. We believe that there are two groups of references in

this cluster. One group comprises criticisms of the capitalist system, studies on the nature of economic life,

and a critical perspective on the way neoclassical economics understands and deals with these issues. This

group is composed of Braverman (1974), Davis (2006), Polanyi (1944), Sahlins (1972), Smith (1776), and

Veblen (1899). It is important to highlight that these references are not only Marxist, but heterodox; this

suggests a convergence of heterodox approaches in the criticism of capitalism, as well as a critical

perspective on the approach of neoclassical economics. The other group is composed of Hardin (1968),

Ostrom (1990), Jackson (2009), and Harvey (2012), and addresses issues related to ecology and the tragedy

of the commons. The solutions suggested by Hardin (1968) for common goods, such as authoritarian

population control and privatization, and Ostrom’s (1990) approach based on New Institutional Economics

are criticized by Harvey’s (2012) Marxist perspective. Jackson’s (2009) book, while not based on a Marxist

perspective, makes a suggestion, similar to Harvey’s (2012), that growth and profit-seeking lead to

degradation of work and the environment. We thus believe that this group is based on Marxist criticisms to

both Hardin’s and Ostrom’s approaches.

There are two other clusters in the RRPE co-citation network. One is composed of Gordon, Edwards,

and Reich (1982), Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Duménil & Lévy (1993; 2004), Harvey (2006), and Brenner

(2006). These studies address, in general, the development and decline of both labor market and capitalist

production, especially in the United States, emphasizing social struggle, the fall in the profit rate, and

criticisms of neoliberalism. We therefore believe this cluster to be composed of issues associated with

Marxism. Finally, the last cluster comprises historical studies on the developmental process based on

different perspectives—Gramsci’s (1971) and Tilly’s (1992) Marxism; critical perspectives on neoclassical

economics, including Reinert (2007), Ferguson & Gupta’s (2002) approach to the influence of the state in

societies from an anthropological perspective and the New Institutional Economics of Acemoglu &

Robinson (2012). We have assumed Acemoglu & Robinson (2012) to be a part of this cluster because it is

critically referenced by RRPE papers22.

In summary, Figure 3 indicates that RRPE papers are based on five co-citation clusters, characterized

by: (1) a Marxist theoretical background and minor references to criticism of both the neoclassical approach

and Keynes’s “General Theory”; (2) an analysis of capitalism from a Marxist perspective; (3) criticisms of

the capitalist system, neoclassical economics, tragedy of the commons, and New Institutional Economics;

(4) miscellaneous issues associated with Marxism, and; (5) historical studies on the developmental process.

There are thus obvious similarities between JEI’s and RRPE’s co-citation networks. Both are

composed of clusters associated with the theoretical backgrounds of, respectively, institutional economics

and radical economics—Veblenian, Commonsian, and Cactus Branch in the case of JEI, and Marxism in

the case of RRPE. Both co-citation networks comprise clusters based on criticisms of (1) capitalism, (2) the

neoclassical approach to capitalism, and (3) New Institutional Economics. These findings corroborate our

previous findings based on the most cited sources that criticism of mainstream economics may be viewed

as a convergent issue among heterodox perspectives. The same is true in relation to criticisms of both

capitalism and New Institutional Economics, as the heterodox approaches promoted by the AFEE and the

URPE demonstrate. Another common theme identifiable in both the JEI and RRPE co-citation networks is

economic development. This reinforces the results we reached by means of thematic maps, in which we

identified “development” as an important issue and a possible point of thematic convergence between JEI

and RRPE papers. Thus, our analysis of the co-citation networks of the papers published in these journals

suggests possible paths to convergence between the AFEE and the URPE, a convergence likely to be based

22 Papers published in RRPE, such as Duzgun (2017), criticize Acemoglu and Robinson’s (2012) perspective that capitalist

development is the result of strong institutions, specifically property rights. Similarly, Lopez-Castellano, Manzanera-Ruiz, and

Lizárraga (2019) criticizes the mainstream perspective of institutionalist analysis of development with a focus on neoliberalism

and institutions, without considering the political environment of individual countries. Fernández, Ebenau, and Bazza (2017)

critically analyzes how capitalist diversity between countries is conceived in mainstream institutionalist literature, including the

study by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012). Artner (2018) criticizes the study of Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) for supporting

the relationship between democracy and liberal capitalism. Moreover, Vernengo and Fields (2012) cites Acemoglu and Robinson

(2012) to indicate the New Institutional Economics perspective on the causes of the rise of Western Europe.

13

on criticism of both the capitalist system and certain theoretical approaches, as well as on a thematic overlap

regarding economic development. However, we were not able to find any convergence whatsoever in terms

of theoretical background.

Figure 4 – Co-citation network of the Review of Social Economy

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Figure 4 shows the ROSE co-citation network, comprising three main clusters. The cluster at the

top of Figure 4 is composed of 19 references, which we divided into three smaller groups: (1) moral issues,

(2) limits and criticism of economics, and (3) identity and groups. The “moral issues” group is composed

of studies on freedom, equality, justice, and exploitation, such as, for example, Griffin (1987), Sample (2003)

and the behavioral economics approach of Fehr & Schmidt (1999), alternative approaches to utilitarian

well-being like Sen’s (1992, 1999 and 2002), Nussbaum’s (2000) capabilities approach, Rawls’s (1977)

deontological contractualism, and Nozick’s (1974) libertarianism. The second group includes studies by

Sen (1987), McCloskey (2006), and DeMartino (2011); this group defends the introduction of ethics and

history into economics, as well as ethics as part of the economics profession. Other studies from this group

include Hirschman (1970) and Lawson (1997), who criticize the theoretical construction of economics and

defend, respectively, in representations of the real world, assumptions more compatible with reality and the

inclusion of social reality. Davis (2006), who is also part of this group, investigates neoclassical economics

as a single and newly dominant research program, encompassing historical and institutional perspectives in

its approach. Mirowski’s (2013) criticism of the thought and construction of neoliberal ideas is also part of

this group. The third group comprises Akerlof and Kranton (2002), Davis (2003), and Williamson (1975).

Akerlof and Kranton adopt a mainstream approach, whereas Davis (2003) criticizes it. Williamson (1975)

approaches New Institutional Economics critically due to his focus on efficiency.

The center cluster is composed of studies that suggest convergence of heterodox approaches as a

theme. This cluster contains studies on Keynesian perspectives—Keynes (1936) and Goshal (2005); social

economics—Polanyi (1944) and Etzioni (1988); and radical approaches (Marx 1867 and Piketty 2014). The

study by Ostrom (1990) is also part of this cluster; usually, it is briefly quoted to introduce the New

Institutional Economics perspective23.The other references are mixed in terms of perspectives. Esping-

Andersen (1990) discusses the state of well-being from a Keynesian and social economics perspective. The

23 For example, Clement and Meunie (2010) and Waters-Lynch and Potts (2017) briefly cite Ostrom (1990) to introduce

discussions on economic development and governance of co-working spaces, respectively. Lutz and Tadesse (2017) derive from

Ostrom’s (1990) study some conditions under which the collective actions of cooperatives are successful in the distribution of

natural resources. Metzlar (2017), when analyzing the strategic position of small producers, use Ostrom (1990) to reinforce his

results, stating that the members of cooperatives do not share the same objectives. Finally, Fremstad (2016) argues that Ostrom's

(1990) neoclassical study disregards the existence of many shareable goods.

14

history of economic ideas is discussed in Schumpeter (1954) and the well-being of workers in Golden &

Wiens-Tuers (2008). Smith’s (1776) Wealth of Nations and Galbraith’s (1958) Affluent Society are also part

of this cluster.

The bottom cluster in Figure 4 comprises papers on social economics, including some on critiques

of traditional approaches. Coleman (1988 and 1990), Granovetter (1985), and Nooteboom (2007) define

and analyze the main concepts of social economics, such as networks, embeddedness, social capital,

institutions, and trust. Other studies seek to understand how social relations matter in the economy through

empirical works. Putman (1993 and 2000) and Fukuyama (1995) analyze how social and cultural relations

and institutions are important in explaining the differences in development and economic prosperity

between regions and countries. Van Staveren and Knorringa (2007) and Lutz (2012) discuss how social

relations interact in companies and value chains. Finally, Wilson and Musick (1997) positively associate

volunteer work with human, social, and cultural capital. This cluster also includes mainstream studies, such

as Knight (1927), Stiglitz & Weiss (1981), and North’s (1990) New Institutional Economics. The general

approach of these papers is critical24.

To summarize, the ROSE co-citation network can be divided into three main groups: moral issues,

limits of and dissatisfaction with economics, and identity and groups. The remaining two clusters concern

convergence of heterodox approaches and social economics; the latter includes criticism of traditional

approaches—mainstream and New Institutional Economics. There are similarities between ROSE’s co-

citation network and both JEI’s and RRPE’s co-citation networks. Although not a dominant issue, ROSE

also includes criticism of New Institutional Economics. This may not be clear because such criticism is

scattered throughout the three main clusters. This is also true of criticism of the neoclassical approach,

which is part of a main cluster and, also, features in a minor cluster (see footnote 24). Thus, the ROSE co-

citation network also reinforces the concept of heterodox convergence through a rejection or criticism of

both the neoclassical approach and New Institutional Economics. This is valid for both JEI’s and RRPE’s

co-citation networks as well. In terms of theoretical background, the ROSE co-citation network also

highlights a convergence among the heterodox approaches. Therefore, our findings about the ROSE co-

citation network suggest that the ASE could be open to convergence with the AFEE and the URPE in what

regards criticism and theoretical background.

5.Final Remarks

This paper offers an empirical study on the possibility of convergence among three of the most

important heterodox associations: the AFEE, the URPE, and the ASE. We focused on these associations

because their annual meetings take place within the ASSA, under the auspices of the AEA. Due to

dissatisfaction with the AEA’s conduction of the ASSA meetings, the AFEE, the URPE, and the ASE have

combined forces as a “survival strategy,” which has led to joint sessions and pre-or post-ASSA conference

meetings—the ICAPE conference. Given that papers published by an association’s journal tend to reflect

the kind of economics its membership stands for, our paper offers an analysis of the theoretical and thematic

perspectives of the three associations on which their possible convergence could be based. We analyzed

the journal of each association, that is, JEI, RRPE, and ROSE in order to explore the possibility of a

convergent thematic or analytical background that might justify a collective survival strategy. To ensure

representativeness, our sample included studies from 2010 to 2019. We used three different metrics: most cited sources, thematic maps, and co-citation networks. The

first throws light on some of the common features of the papers published by JEI, RRPE, and ROSE. We

observed that the most cited journal in each journal was that journal itself and that most references were to

papers published in mainstream journals. In addition, most of the papers published in the three journals deal

directly with a rejection or criticism of mainstream economics and then introduce their heterodox

24 The ROSE co-citation network comprises three main clusters and two minor clusters. One minor cluster comprises four studies:

Defourny & Nyssens (2010), Dey & Steyaert (2010), Yunus (2010) and Hjorth (2013). Social entrepreneurship is the main theme

of this cluster. These studies aim at comparing the different concepts and narratives of social entrepreneurship, highlighting the

economic, social, political, and cultural aspects of enterprises. The other minor cluster consists of only two articles, Becker (1968)

and Necker (2014), and addresses issues related to unethical or illegal behavior. The article by Becker (1968) refers to economists’

scientific misbehavior (data fabrication or plagiarism) due to the pressure to publish. The argument is that the economic theory

of crime, developed by Becker (1968), predicts that competition increases the benefits of cheating.

15

perspectives, that is, we found convergence based on positive alternatives as advocated by Lee. This type

of convergence (rejection and criticism of mainstream in order to offer an alternative) was also reinforced

by our analysis of co-citation networks.

Co-citation networks also suggest that rejection and criticism of New Institutional Economics could

be a possible point of convergence. Both the JEI and the RRPE co-citation networks also highlight the

pervasiveness of the criticism of capitalism as a possible convergent issue. According to the thematic maps

and co-citation networks, “development” is an important issue for both JEI and RRPE, which may indicate

a possible point of thematic convergence. However, the thematic maps show that each journal approaches

“development” according to its preferred analytical background—Original Institutionalism in the case of

JEI, and radical economics, in case of RRPE. Other findings of this paper are as follows: (1) the most cited

sources highlight that there is cross-fertilization in the JEI-RRPE, and JEI-ROSE dyads, but not in the

RRPE-ROSE dyad; (2) the thematic maps indicate that there is no possible thematic convergence between

ROSE and either JEI or RRPE; and (3) the co-citation networks suggest the existence of an openness of

ROSE to convergence regarding heterodox approaches in terms of theoretical backgrounds; however, this

aspect has not been fully explored here.

References Acemoglu, Daron and James Robinson. 2012. Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty.

New York: Crown Business.

Akerlof, George and Rachel Kranton. 2000. “Economics and identity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3):

715-753

Almeida, Felipe. 2016. “Inside the Organizational Institutions of Institutional Economics: Why Are There Two

Institutionalist Associations?” Journal of Economic Issues, 50(2): 566-574

Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal development: an essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism. New

York: Monthly Review Press.

Aria, Massimo and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. “bibliometrix: An R-tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping

Analysis.” Journal of Informetrics, 11(4): 959-975.

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The long twentieth century: money, power, and the origins of our times. New York:

Verso.

Artner, Annamària. 2018. "Can Capitalism Be Truly Democratic?" Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(4):

793-809.

Ayres, Clarence. 1944. The Theory of Economic Progress. Chapel Hill: The University Of North Carolina Press

Ayres, Clarence. 1951. “The Co-Ordinates of Institutionalism.” The American Economic Review, 41(2): 47–55

Ayres, Clarence. 1953. “The Role of Technology in Economic Theory.” The American Economic Review, 43(2);

279–287

Ayres, Clarence. 1961. Toward a Reasonable Society: The Values of Industrial Civilization. Austin: The

University Of Texas Press

Backhouse, Roger. 2000. “Progress in heterodox economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22

(2): 149-155.

Backhouse, Roger. 2004. “A suggestion for clarifying the study of dissent in Economics.” Journal of the History

of Economic Thought, 26 (2): 261-271.

Baudry, Bernard and Virgile Chassagnon. 2019. “The Williamsonian Ambiguity on Authority and Power in

Transaction Cost Economics” Journal of Economic Issues, 53(1): 257-276

Becker, Gary S. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy, 76(2):

169-217.

Bowles, Samuel, Richard Edward and Frank Roosevelt. 2005. Understanding capitalism: competition,

command, and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century.. New

York: Monthly Review Press.

Brenner, Robert. 2006. The economics of global turbulence: the advanced capitalist economies from long boom

to long downturn, 1945-2005. London: Verso Press.

Brown, Christopher. 2008. Inequality, Consumer Credit and Saving Puzzle. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Brown, Christopher. 2009. “Ayresian Technology, Schumpeterian Innovation, and the Bayh-Dole Act” Journal

of Economic Issues, 43(2): 477-486

16

Buckley, Louis F. 1984. “Early years of the Association for Social Economics” Forum for Social Economics,

14: 63–83.

Bush, Paul. 1987. “Theory of Institutional Change” Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3): 1075-1116

Callon, M., J.P. Courtial and F. Laville, F. 1991. “Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of

interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry” Scientometrics

22: 155–205

Cavalieri, Marco and Felipe Almeida. 2017. “A History of the Foundation and the Early Years of AFEE:

Pluralism and Eclecticism in Dissenting” Journal of Economic Issues, 51(3): 613–634

Chibber, Vivek. 2003. Locked in place: state-building and late industrialization in India. Oxford: University of

Princeton Press.

Clary, Jane Betsy. 2008. “The Evolution of the Allied Social Science Associations” The American Journal of

Economics and Sociology, 67(5): 985–1005.

Clement, Matthieu and Andre Meunie. 2010. "Is Inequality Harmful for the Environment? An Empirical

Analysis Applied to Developing and Transition Countries" Review of Social Economy, 68(4): 413-445

Coase, Ronald. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm” Economica, 4(16): 386-405

Coase Ronald. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost” Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): 1-44

Coats, A. W. 1985. “The American Economic Association and the Economics Profession” Journal of Economic

Literature, 23(4): 1697-727.

Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. 2011. “An approach for detecting,

quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the Fuzzy Sets

Theory field.” Journal of Informetrics 5 (1): 146-166

Colander, David, Richard Holt and Barkley Rosser Jr. 2004. “The changing face of mainstream economics”

Review of Political Economy, 16(4): 485-499.

Coleman, James. 1998. “Social capital in creation of human capital.” American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-

S120.

Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Commons, John.1924. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New York: Macmillan

Commons, John. 1934. Institutional Economics: its Place in Political Economy. New York: Macmillan

Commons, John. 1931. “Institutional Economics” American Economic Review, 21(4): 648-657

Davis, Ann E. 2017. “Fetishism and Financialization” Review of Radical Political Economics 49(4): 551–558

Davis, Ann E. 2018. “The New Triffin Dilemma” Review of Radical Political Economics 50(4): 691–698

Davis, John. 2003. The theory of the individual in economics: identity and value. London: Routledge.

Davis, John. 2006. “Turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?” Journal of

Institutional Economics, 2(1): 1-20.

Davis, John. 2008 “Heterodox Economics, the fragmentation of the mainstream, and embedded individual

analysis.” In: Harvey, John T.; Garnett, Robert F. Future directions for heterodox economics. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press, p. 53-72.

De Angelis, Massimo and David Harvie. 2008. “Globalization? No Question! Foreign Direct Investment and

Labor Commanded.” Review of Radical Political Economics 40(4): 429–444

Defourny, Jacques and Marthe Nyssens. 2010 “Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship

in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,

1(1): 32-53.

DeMartino, George. 2011. The Economist’s oath: on need for and conctent of professional economic ethics.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Demsetz, Harold. 1967. “Toward a Theory of Property Rights” American Economic Review, 57 (2), Pp. 347-

359

Dequech, David. 2007. “Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics” Journal of Post

Keynesian Economics, 30(2): 279-302.

Dey, Pascal and Chris Steyaert. 2010. “The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship.” Journal of

Enterprising communities, 4(1): 85-108.

Dolfsma, Wilfred. 2008. “History and Significance of the Allied Social Science Associations (ASSA-II): A

Symposium.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67(5): 969–972.

Dugger, William, 1990. “New Institutionalism: New but not Institutionalist” Journal of Economic Issues,

24(2):423-431

17

Duménil, Gérard and Domenique Lévy. 1993. The economics of the profit rate: competition, crises and

historical tendencies in capitalism. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.

Duménil, Gérard and Domenique Lévy. 2004. Capital resurgent: roots of the neoliberal revolution. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Duménil, Gérard and Domenique Lévy. 2011. The crisis of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Duzgun, Eren. 2017. "Property, Geopolitics, and Eurocentrism: The “Great Divergence” and the Ottoman

Empire" Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(1): 24-43.

Elsner, Wolfram. 2012. “Theory of Institutional Change Revisited: Institutional Dichotomy, Its Dynamic, and

Its Policy Implications in a More Formal Analysis” Journal of Economic Issues, 46(1):1-44

Elsner, Wolfram, Gero Hocker and Henning Schwardt. 2010. “Simplistic vs. Complex Organization: Markets,

Hierarchies, and Networks in an Organizational Triangle — A Simple Heuristic to Analyze Real-World

Organizational Forms” Journal of Economic Issues, 44(1):1-30

Errasti, Angel, Ignacio Bretos and Aitziber Nunez. 2017. “The Viability of Cooperatives: The Fall of the

Mondragon Cooperative Fagor” Review of Radical Political Economics, 49(2): 181-197

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1988. The moral dimension: toward a new economics. New York: Free Press.

Fehr, Ernst and Klaus Schmidt. 1999. “A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation.” Quarterly Journal

of Economics, 114(3): 817-868.

Ferguson, James and Akhil Gupta. 2002. “Spatializing states: toward an etnography of neoliberal

governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29(4): 981-1002.

Fernández, Víctor Ramiro, Matthias Ebenau and Alcides Bazza. 2017. "Rethinking Varieties of Capitalism from

the Latin American Periphery" Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(2): 392-408.

Fine, Ben. 2010. Theories of social capital: researchers behaving badly. London: Pluto Press.

Fremstad, Anders. 2016. "Sticky Norms, Endogenous Preferences, and Shareable Goods" Review of Social

Economy, 74(2): 194-214.

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press

Fukuyama, Francis. 1995. Trust: the social virtues and creation of prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1958. The affluent society. London: Penguin Books.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1967. New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Ghoshal, Sumantra. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of

management learning and education, 4(1): 75-91.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2006. A post-capitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gill, Stephen. 1995. “Globalisation, Market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism.” Millennium Journal

of International Studies, 24(3): 339-423.

Glyn, Andrew. 2006. Capitalism Unleashed: finance, globalization, and welfare. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Golden, Lonnie and Barbara Wiens-Tuers. 2008. “Overtime work and wellbeing at home.” Review of Social

Economy, 66(1): 25-49.

Gordon, David, Richard Edwards and Michael Reich. 1982. Segmented work, divided workers: the historical

transformation of labor in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic action and social structure: problem of embeddedness.” American Journal

of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510

Griffin, James. 1986. Well-being: its Meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gruchy, Allan. 1939. “The Economics of the National Resources Committee.” The American Economic Review,

29(1): 60–73

Gruchy, Allan. 1958. “The Influence of Veblen on Mid-Century Institutionalism.” The American Economic

Review, 48(2): 11–20

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The tragedy of commons.” Science, 162(859): 243-248.

Harvey, David. 1982. The limits to capital. London: Verso.

Harvey, David. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harvey, David. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harvey, David. 2006. Spaces of global capitalism: towards a theory of unevan geographical development.

London: Verso.

Harvey, David. 2010. The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. London: Profile Books.

18

Harvey, David. 2012. Rebel Cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso.

Harvey, David. 2014. Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hayden, F. Gregory. 2006. Policymaking for a Good Society: Social Fabric Matrix Approach to Policy Analysis

and Program Evaluation. New York: Springer

Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations and states.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hjorth, Daniel. 2013. “Public entrepreneurship: desiring social change, creating sociality.” Entrepreneurship &

Regional Development: An International Journal, 25(1-2): 34-51.

Hodgson, Geoffrey. 1999. Economics and Utopia: Why the Learning Economy is not the End of History.

London: Routledge

Hodgson, Geoffrey. 2004. “Reclaiming Habit for Institutional Economics” Journal of Economic Psychology,

25(5): 651-660

Hodgson, Geoffrey. 2006. “What Are Institutions?” Journal of Economic Issues, 40(1):1-25

Jackson, Tim. 2009. Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.

Jo, Tae-Hee. 2019. “The Institutionalist Theory of the Business Enterprise: Past, Present, and Future” Journal

of Economic Issues 53(3):597-611

Jossa, Bruno. 2005. “Marx, marxism and the cooperative movement.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(1):

3-18.

Jossa, Bruno. 2014. “The Key Contradiction in Capitalist Systems” Review of Radical Political Economics,

46(3): 277-291.

Jossa, Bruno. 2016. “Is Historical Materialism a Deterministic Approach? The Democratic Firm and the

Transition to Socialism” Review of Radical Political Economics, 50(1): 82-98.

Kalecki, Michal. 1954. Theory of economic dynamics. London: Allen and Unwin.

Kautsky, Karl. 1899. The agrarian question. London: Pete Burgess.

Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan

Knight, Frank. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston and New York: Kelley

Kotz, David. 2009. “The financial and economic crisis of 2008: a systemic crisis of neoliberal capitalism.”

Review of Radical Political Economics, 41 (3): 305-317.

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic

politics. London: Verso.

Lawson, Tony. 1997. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge

Lawson, Tony. 2003. Reorienting Economics. London: Routledge

Lawson, Tony. 2004. “Reorienting Economics: on heterodox economics, themata and the use of mathematics

in economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(3): 329-340.

Lawson, Tony. 2006. “The nature of heterodox economics.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4): 483-505.

Lee, Fred. 2009. A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, Fred. 2011. “The pluralism debate in heterodox economics.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 43(4):

540-551.

Lee, Fred. 2012. “Heterodox economics and its critics.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 24(2): 337-351.

Lopez-Castellano, Fernando, Roser Manzanera-Ruiz and Carmen Lizárraga. 2019. "Deinstitutionalization of

the State and Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Contribution to the Critique of the Neoinstitutionalist

Analysis of Development" Review of Radical Political Economics, 51(3): 418-437.

Lutz, Clemens. 2012. “Opportunities for smallholders from developing countries in global value chains.”

Review of Social Economy, 70(4): 468-476.

Lutz, Clemens and Getaw Tadesse. 2017. "African farmers' market organizations and global value chains:

competitiveness versus inclusivess" Review of Social Economy, 75(3): 318-338.

Martins, Nuno. 2015. “Veblen, Sen, and the Formalization of Evolutionary Theory” Journal of Economic Issues,

49(3): 649-668

Marx, Karl. 1857. Grundrisse. New York: Penguin Books.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Das Kapital. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Mata, Thiago. 2014. Dissent in Economics: Making Radical Political Economics and Post Keynesian

Economics, 1960-1980. Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC.

19

McCloskey, Deirdre. 2006. The Bourgeois virtues: ethics for an age of commerce. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

McNally, David. 2011. Global slump: the economics and politics of crisis and resistance. Oakland: PM Press.

Mearman, Andrew. 2011. “Who do heterodox economists think they are?” American Journal of Economics and

Sociology, 70(2): 480-510.

Metzlar, Alle. 2017. "Strategic intent and the strategic position of smallholders: a case study of a smallholders'

organization in the Ghanaian cocoa industry" Review of Social Economy, 75(3): 371-387

Miller, Genna. 2012. “‘Gender Trouble’: Investigating Gender and Economic Democracy in Worker

Cooperatives in the United States” Review of Radical Political Economics, 44(1): 8–22

Minsky, Hyman. 1986. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press

Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat Than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mirowski, Philip. 2013. Never let a serious crisis go to waste: how neoliberalism survived financial meltdown.

London: Verso.

Morgan, Mary and Malcolm Rutherford. 1998. “American economics: the character of the transformation.”

History of Political Economy, 30 (Supplement): 1-26.

Munck, Ronaldo. 2013. “The precariat: a view from the south.” Third World Quarterly, 34 (5): 747-762.

Neale, Walter, 1987. “Institutions” Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3):1177-1206

Necker, Sarah. 2014. “Scientific misbehavior in economics.” Research Policy, 43(10): 1747–1759.

Nelson, Richard and Sidney Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press

Nooteboom, Bart. 2007. “Social capital, institutions and trust.” Review of Social Economy, 65(1): 29-53.

North, Douglass. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: WW Norton

North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

North, Douglass. 2005. Understanding Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.

Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge: The

Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing Commons: Evolution Of Institutions For Collective Action. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Padgett, Andrew and Tonia Warnecke. 2011. “Diamonds in the Rubble: The Women of Haiti” Journal of

Economic Issues, 45(3): 527-558

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press

Putnam, Robert. 1993. Marking democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2000 Bowling alone: collapse and revival of american community. New York: Simon and

Schuster.

Quick, Paddy. 2004. “Subsistence wages and household production: clearing the way for an analysis of class

and gender.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 36(1): 20-36

Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Reinert, Erick. 2007. How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor. London: Constable.

Ricci, Andrea. 2019. “Unequal Exchange in the Age of Globalization” Review of Radical Political Economics

51(2): 225–45.

Rosdolsky, Roman. 1977. The making of Marx’s capital. London: Pluto Press.

Rutherford, Malcolm. 1994. Institutions in Economics: Old and New Institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Rutherford, Malcolm. 2001. “Institutional Economics: Then and Now. Journal of Economic Perspectives,

15(3):173-194

Rutherford, Malcolm. 2011. The Institutionalist Movement in American Economics, 1918-1947. New York: The

Cambridge University Press

Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine Altherton.

Sample, Ruth. 2003. Exploitation: wht it is and why its wrong. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press

20

Schumpeter, Joseph. 1954. History of economic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya. 1987. On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Small, Henry. 1973. “Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two

documents” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 24(4): 265-269

Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations. Edinburgh: William Strahan

Sraffa, Piero. 1960. Production of commodities by means of commodities: prelude to a critique of economic

theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spithoven, Antoon. 2019. “Similarities and Dissimilarities between Original Institutional Economics and New

Institutional Economics” Journal of Economic Issues, 53(2):440-447

Stiglitz, Joseph and Andrew Weiss. 1981. “Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information.” American

Economic Review, 71(3): 393-410.

Sturgeon, James. 1981. “The History of the Association of Institutional Thought.” Review of Institutional

Thought 1: 40-53.

Teixeira, Rodrigo Alves and Tomas Nielsen Rotta. 2012. “Valueless Knowledge Commodities and

Financialization: Productive and Financial Dimensions of Capital Autonomization” Review of Radical

Political Economics, 44(4): 448-467

Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, capital, and european states. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Van Staveren, Irene and Peter Knorringa. 2007. “Unpacking social capital in economic development: how social

relation matter.” Review of Social Economy, 65(1): 107-135.

Vanek, Jaroslav. 1970. The general theory of labor-managed market economies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Veblen, Thorstein. 1898a. “Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” Quarterly Journal of Economics

12(4):373-397

Veblen, Thorstein. 1898b. “Instinct of Workmanship and Irksomeness of Labor” American Journal of Sociology

4(2):187-201

Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of Leisure Class. New York: Penguin Books

Veblen, Thorstein. 1904. The Theory of Business Enterprise. New York: Charles Scribners Sons

Veblen, Thorstein. 1914. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State Of Industrial Arts. New York: Macmillan

Veblen, Thorstein. 1919. The Vested Interests and the State of Industrial Arts. New York: Huebsch

Veblen, Thorstein. 1921. Engineers and the Price System. New York: B.W. Huebsch

Veblen, Thorstein. 1923. Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: Case of America. New

York: B.W. Huebsch

Vernengo, Matías and David Fields. 2012. "DisORIENT: Money, Technological Development and the Rise of

the West" Review of Radical Political Economics, 48(4): 562-568

Warnecke, Tonia. 2013. “Entrepreneurship and Gender: An Institutional Perspective” Journal of Economic

Issues, 47(2): 455-464

Warnecke, Tonia. 2017. “Social Innovation, Gender, and Technology: Bridging the Resource Gap” Journal of

Economic Issues, 51(2): 305-314

Waters-Lynch, Julian and Jason Potts. 2017. "The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of

coordination" Review of Social Economy, 75(4): 417-433

Weeks, John. 1981. Capital and exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Williamson, Oliver. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press

Williamson Oliver. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press

Wilson, John and Marc Musick. 1997. “Who cares? Toward and integrated theory of volunteer work.” American

Sociological Review, 62 (5): 694-713.

Wrenn, Mary. 2007. “What is heterodox economics? Conversations with historians of economic thought.”

Forum for Social Economics, 36 (2): 97-108.

Wunder, Timothy. 2007. “Toward an Evolutionary Economics: The ‘Theory of the Individual’ in Thorstein

Veblen and Joseph Schumpeter” Journal of Economic Issues, 41(3): 827-839

Yunus, Muhammad. 2010. Building Social Business: the new kind of capitalism that serves humanity’s most

pressing needs. New York: Public Affairs.