Promise and delivery in the New Classical Revolution

Boris Salazar and Daniel Otero ♣

Abstract. This article argues that the outcome of the New Classical Revolution (NCR) diverged from
the original revolutionary promise. As word of the revolution hit macroeconomics, a situation of
disputed practice emerged in macroeconomics, monetary policy and econometrics. Whilst New
Keynesians economists resisted the revolution by means of changing their practice, a revolt was
already brewing in econometrics. The interaction between all those processes generated disputed
paths of evolution and a very unexpected outcome for the revolution. The econometrics revolt
expanded to other fields, where in interaction with internal and external pragmatic issues pushed the
rise of empirical economics, and the demise of a priori theorizing. The new field of
macroeconometrics and the NK DSGE models were the main by-products of the intertwined
processes unleashed by the NCR. We introduced a new recursive process of citation growth in order
to explain the survival of older articles, and used citation and cocitation networks, extraction
algorithms and historical analysis to follow the evolution of communities in a disputed field.

1.Introduction
Every scientific revolution is based on the promise of its success: that which those
implementing it believe they may achieve in the future on the basis of the unprecedented
discoveries brought to life by the first revolutionaries. (Kuhn 1962/2012) As a beginning,
just a few scientists share the hope that they will enjoy success in their endeavor if they follow
the guiding models of the new paradigm. The evidence favouring their hopes need not be
overwhelming. A handful of incomplete examples would appear to suffice. It could be no
other way: the revolution has hardly begun take-off. What, then, justifies the optimism of
those first to take it up? The certainty that some current problems will not be solved by the
contemporary paradigm; and, the hope that the partial successes of the first revolutionaries
may allow for the resolution of similar issues in the future.
One natural way of justifying the adherents’ faith in the new paradigm is by applying logical
tests and rational rules for comparing the scientific potential of the competing paradigms in
order to establish beyond a doubt the scientific superiority of one or other paradigm. But
those untying rational rules do not exist. That is why something resembling faith has to be
invoked:
The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often do so in defiance
of the evidence provided by problem-solving. He must, that is, have faith that the new
paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only

♣
Department of Economics, Universidad del Valle. The authors acknowledge financial support from
the Universidad del Valle VRI (Vice-Rectory of Research), and thank Pilar Castillo and participants
at the ALAHPE conference for helpful comments and observations.
 that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be
made on faith. [Kuhn 2012/1962 156-7, our italics]
But faith does not guarantee that the revolution’s conclusions will fit neatly to any
expectations of success. Promise and delivery are separated by complex and conflictive
processes which generate the creation, destruction and melding of alternative paradigms by
the heat of revolutionary promise. This article tries to establish the interactive dynamics
between promise and delivery in the New Classics Revolution (hereafter, NCR), its
transformative effects on macroeconomics, on econometrics and on monetary policy; and,
the conflictive evolution in the 1979 – 2013 period of macroeconomists’ methods and
practice.
The narrative to be presented is revisionist. We maintain that there is no inevitable and linear
unfolding that would run from the kernel of Lucas, Prescott and Sargent’s revolutionary
promise to its final conclusion in the neo-Keynesian DSGE models which are nowadays used
by the world’s central banks for purposes of forecasting and evaluating economic policy. The
conclusion that occurred has not been the inevitable result of the strict logical superiority of
the Lucas’ (1976) critique of the econometric evaluation of economic policy, and of the
systematic application of equilibrium, rational expectations, and the calibration of artificial
economies to the study of real economies. Instead, our narrative prioritizes studying the NRC
as an historical event that unfolded in the way of political and scientific revolutions: tempered
by the play of events, sudden breaks, bifurcations and changes of tack. The NCR, like all
revolutions, did not have one singular, and inevitable, future.
The variety of alternatives unleashed by the NCR created a dispute about the control of the
macroeconomists’ and econometricians’ practices and methods, the conclusion of which
spread to other fields of Economics and ended up affecting, by indirect means, practices in
the entire profession. Lucas and associates’ storming of the econometricians’ evaluation of
economic policy placed at the heart of the debate the evolution of econometric practices and
the concomitant levels of scientific rigour associated with it. In spite of the NCR’s clear
preference for the a-priori theory, one of its critical objectives was to break the monopoly
held by large-scale Keynesian models over the empirical praxis of the econometricians; and,
to get rid, once and for all, of the researchers’ subjective judgments of the empirical results
of scientific research. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into macroeconomics
and the evaluation of economic policy was linked to the need to make sure that the
researchers’ subjective judgments were kept out of their empirical practices: it was
imperative to write sets of computable instructions that, on being properly uploaded, would
produce results resembling those in real economies (Lucas 1980).
As it happens in social and political revolutions, the way taken by the NCR depended on the
state, at the moment of it erupting, of the different fields of the economy affected by the
revolutionary crisis. Thus, we may suppose that before the revolutionary eruption there were
already nuclei of economists who were engaged in real practices rather different from those

2
of the dominant Keynesian paradigm, that these practices were not similar to each other, and
that the seeds of debate about “What to do?” were already present and discernible in what
they were currently doing. The juxtaposing of that which was already changing and the new
paradigm led to the emergence of diverging alternatives, and of paths which had not been
anticipated in the discussion held by the first revolutionaries. The meeting of the New
Classics’ (NC) proposal with extant alternatives for change in the field of econometrics
unleashed the emergence of new econometric practices which transformed economic policy
evaluations and the place and status of econometrics within the Economics discipline.
To better understand the revolutionary process set in motion by the New Classics, it is
essential to take in empirical evidence. It is not possible to understand well a process as
complex and diverse as the NCR based only on the personal opinions and critical reading of
models and practices by a few privileged observers – the historians of economic thought.
Instead, we shall turn to two types of tools: (i) complex networks and the science of
information in order to recover the networks of citations and co-citations that spring from
the interplay between macroeconomists and econometricians, and to model the evolution
processes unleashed by the revolution; and, (ii) the critical reading of the sequences and
clustering of the most cited articles, and the historical reconstruction of individuals, events
and seminal disciplines in different faculties and public spheres.
Why this kind of empirical evidence and none other? Firstly, because the event we are trying
to understand is a scientific revolution and not a normally-paced time in scientific progress.
Scientific revolutions indicate radical, turbulent and profound changes in the scientists’
methods and weltanschauung; and in the ways they come together to implement change.
An effective way to comprehend the existence and evolution of scientific communities is the
building of citation and co-citation networks. The first of these allude to citations researchers
use from past articles and books which have helped them in their own work and writing. The
nodes are the articles and the links the citations that current articles made of past ones.
Cocitation networks allude to the citations that one or more articles have made of past
articles. The two represent the clusters of articles and books more related to each other, but
with a few links with the remaining articles of the network. These sets of articles and writings
are but one of the traces of the real communities in which the scientists live and work.
Revolutionary processes radically alter these networks. Highly cited and cocited bodies of
articles appear, replacing and displacing the heretofore most cited sets of articles that existed
before the revolutionary change. The evolution of networks of citation and co-citation yields
a discernible and quantifiable trace of these processes.
The sudden emergence of new communities, made up of articles and books and the dismissal
of older communities is a trace of the sudden change brought about by an explosion of new
practices in a scientific discipline. In an exact sense, it captures the way in which practitioners
in a given field take up exemplar models, quotations and tools and set aside the once
dominant ones of the past. Naturally, it does not capture every aspect of the changes, but it

3
does provide a rough understanding of how the genealogy and organization of scientific
output has been transformed in a context of revolutionary change.
The contentious nature of the changes set in motion by the NCR leads one to suppose that
the resulting change was not caused by optimal individual decisions, but rather by the
interactions among researchers facing the emergence of several diverse alternatives from
which to choose. All the alternatives competed on the expectation of fulfilling the promise
of rendering fundamental changes to the practice of macroeconomists and econometricians.
All of them also promised to deliver by distinct ways and means, following divergent
premises and using different tools and techniques. The result is the spontaneous emergence
of organization in the shape of communities and specializations. One natural way to deal with
this is to model the emergence of rival communities and new specializations as coming from
the fusion of some and the disappearance of others in processes that may be modelled in
complex networks.
But a community is rather more than just a collection of articles united by co-citation and
citation links. Nor yet is it a group of scientists backing a new method or cause. If it were
thus, it would simply be a party or revolutionary organization. The identities of scientific
communities are built on several kinds of connections and links. (White 2008, 157). In the
context of the debate unleashed by the NCR, the grouping of certain people in faculties,
universities and central banks did not guarantee the emergence of a common identity. Sims,
Sargent, Wallace, and Prescott and Kydland came together in the Economics Department at
Minnesota University and the Minneapolis Federal Reserve but ended up in very different
scientific communities. Robert Barro was at Harvard, seemingly the epicenter of the New
Keynesian reaction to the NCR but, his style and values identified him as part of the Kydland,
Prescott and Lucas community. And, the coincidence of Muth, Lucas, Simon, Holt and
Modigliani at Carnegie-Mellon towards the end of the Sixties and into the early Seventies,
did not cause them to be seen as members of a like-minded community: they ended up
representing opposing strategies on how to do science in Economics.
The communities thus emerging changed in accordance with the introduction of new
exemplar models and tools, and with the emergence of links among previously separate
communities. Once change was operated, it was all about how a researcher learned to
constrain his actions and to decline ‘alternative courses of action based on the basis of the
communal relations to which he belongs.’ (Calhoun, 1980, 110). Being part of the NCR, in
terms of one’s commitment to its profound changes of scientific praxis, meant that proximate
authors took very different decisions about how to change their ways, but once they belong
to one specific community, alternative courses of action were excluded.
Our hypothesis is that the process set in motion by the NCR was a complex and evolving
process in which “change was propagated through interconnected behavior”. (Arthur, 2015,
15). Faced with the promise of the NCR, the macroeconomists and econometrists of the
Eighties and Nineties did not react with a single strategy. Deep differences immediately

4
appeared. Though everyone accepted the need to change their scientific practice, there was
no clear agreement about how they were to achieve this. The veteran and older Keynesians
did not even try to change their ways. Solow, Samuelson, Tobin, Modigliani made no
concession or effort to change their methodology. The ones who were middle-aged decided
to go with the change but did not accept the assumptions and hypotheses of the NCs.
Contrary to conventional belief, not all of the younger generation went over immediately to
the revolutionary creed. The more youthful Keynesians (Mankiw, Blanchard, Quah,
Summers) stuck to their beliefs and quickly counter-attacked with alternative models,
producing new data and metrics which had some impact even on the practice of the NCs.
The first NCs were researchers who were middle aged, or on the doorstep of middle age:
Lucas was born in 1937, and Prescott in 1940; 1943 was vintage and gave us Kydland,
Sargent and Hall; Barro started life in 1944 and Wallace in 1939.1 Thus the struggle in the
Eighties and Nineties was driven by researchers who were already middle-aged. It was not a
conflict between the younger generation – won over to the revolution by their middle-aged
colleagues – and the Keynesians of the senior generation, whose interventions and comments
used to make the younger assistants laugh (Lucas in Klamer, 1983). In fact, it was an intense
clash between groupings made up, on both sides of the debate, of already middle-aged
economists and youngsters who were starting their academic careers in an atmosphere of
conflict.
Whilst the NCR was advancing into the U. S. Economics Departments, a mutiny was
breaking out against the identification and specification methods used in day-to-day
econometric practice. This mutiny in econometrics brought about, through the changes it
wrought, an extra interaction: it was no longer enough to follow diverging paradigms. Now,
one had to take in account the empirical results obtained by the econometricians and macro-
economists working within econometrics. The slow stabilizing of the fundamental facts led
to the creation of communities that shared facts and techniques, despite holding possibly
rather different opinions of the economic processes and economic policy.
Our hypothesis is that the practice as proposed by the NCs went forward in a discontinuous
and changing way across different disputed fields until coming to an unanticipated
conclusion, unforeseen and rather different than what the first revolutionaries had expected.
Clarifying the interdependent processes that led to this unexpected outcome is the purpose
and aim of this article.

1.1 NCR’s revolutionary promise

1
Neo-Keynesian economists were also getting into middle-age at the time: Stiglitz was born in 1943, Akerlof
in 1941, and Weiss in 1945.

5
Lucas’ revolutionary promise (1980) was to construct analogue economies, or artificial
worlds, by means of a FORTRAN program, which could fed with appropriate empirical
parameters and put out empirical results similar to those observed in the real economy. It was
a promise drawn from a combination of equilibrium discipline, unlimited rationality and
Artificial Intelligence. It was associated with a very high technical demand that seemed to
indicate a radical break from the predominant scientific practice in macroeconomics and in
the evaluation of economic policy, and that would eliminate, thanks to the application of
Artificial Intelligence (AI), any subjective judgment from scientific processes and results.
Nobody, not even Lucas himself, knew if this promise was deliverable or not. Lucas (1972)
had already shown that it was possible to build models with monetary neutrality, general
equilibrium, incomplete information and economic fluctuations. But, this modelling did not
allow for an empirical approximation to a real economy’s results. It was simply a
confirmation that it was possible to produce fluctuations in economic activity in an artificial
world in equilibrium, no monetary illusion, incomplete information and rational
expectations. However, it remained unclear how this theoretical revolution could transform
the real practice of the macroeconomists.
It is not by mere chance that Lucas and Sargent’s (1979) harshest attacks were directed at the
empirical heart of the Keynesian economy, and especially, at the junctions between macro-
economic theory, econometrics, and economic policy which was the axis of Keynesian
macroeconomic practice and its control of economic policy. In strategic terms, Lucas knew
that better theoretical models alone would not suffice. It would also be necessary to turf the
Keynesian models out of their heartlands, i.e. the forecast of the economy’s real output and
the evaluation economic policy effects. Both called for a tranformation of econometric
practice.
And there lay the hub of the dispute around macroeconomic practice towards the end of the
Seventies and on into the Eighties and Nineties. It was a dispute in which the econometricians
freed themselves, for the first time, from the chains that used to bind them to theoretical
assessments of the economy, and which they had served loyally until this time.
But there was not one single and especial path that would lead to new econometric practice.2
What is more, in econometrics, revolutionary changes were already happening quite
independently of the NCR. At the centre of the revolutionary change lay the transformation
in economists’ and econometricians’ scientific practice. In the preface to ‘Rational

2
Axel Leijonhufvud (2006) proposed the structure of a decision tree to represent the way in which economists
have chosen some paths and rejected other ones when confronted by bifurcations made up of divergent
alternatives. Most historians of economics have chosen to consider just one of the paths, erasing alternative
paths and thus creating a history without a past. At the end it is only relevant what leads into the dominant
paradigm.

6
Expectations and Econometric Practice’ Lucas and Sargent precised the consequences of
rational expectations’ advent for the economists’ scientific practice:
Yet how, exactly, does the economist who is persuaded of the usefulness of this idea,
or is at least interested enough to give it an honest test, alter the way he practices his
trade? (Lucas and Sargent 1981a, our emphasis.)
What was up for dispute was how and in what ways, using which tools, following which
criteria would economists be ready to change the actual practices and produce models which
might be turned into exemplar models. The struggle lay not only on the abstract level of ideas
but, also, on the more concrete level of economists’ real practices. This was the line on which
Lucas, Sargent and Prescott focused all their efforts. Our problem is how to handle this
change in economists and econometrists’ practice brought about by the NCR in a context of
intense dispute.

2. Materials and Methods

As our aim is to understand the processes of social interaction and of intellectual choice as
unleashed by the NRC in a context of open dispute for the control over economists and
econometricians’ practice, establishing its effects implies finding the concomitant patterns of
simultaneous and articulated expansion through several competing potential paradigms. That
is to say, therefore, grasping the effects of separation and of interdependence at one and the
same time.
We assume that writers working within the RBC (Real Business Cycle) and calibration
tradition would not use as feed for their work traditional Keynesian techniques, tools and
modelling strategies. Something similar happened in the opposite way. Behind this
supposition lay the deep divergence that split the writers of the two traditions in respect to
values, beliefs and questions. However, the technical challenge pushed by the NCR and the
inevitable pressure of the empirical evidence found by econometricians and economists from
very different traditions, led to bridge-building between the two of them.
Our problem is to find evidence that might allow us to comprehend the setting in motion of
two distinct processes. The forming of two separate and opposing communities and the
building of bridges by means of technical solutions and recovering observed facts. It is likely
that the interplay of these two forces would generate organization patterns neither pure and
separate communities nor one great single component springing from the fusion of
specializations and communities. Intertwined in this conflictive separation process, the
spread of the revolutionary promise into other areas of Economics was going on at the same
time. How then would we take into account the empirical effects of these three intertwined
processes? By following Kuhn’s recommendation to have recourse to:

7
 [A]bove all (…) formal and informal communication networks including those
discovered in correspondence and in the linkages among citations. (Kuhn op. cit.,
177)
Let us then take up the citations and cocitations networks originally introduced in the science
of information [Price 1965, 1976; Small 1977] and in complex networks, and the historical
reconstruction of the salient events linked to the conflictive development of scientific
communities and their practices – articles, places, institutions, events, interactions and
hierarchies— in order to understand the evolution of those processes.
A citation network is made up of a set of nodes (articles) and a set of directed links that takes
the following way: article i is cited by another article j, written i → j. This type of link might
be read as i influences j or i was needed to produce j. As any article in the i position must
pre-date any in the j position, the quotation networks are directed and have a definite
temporal pathway i.e. they run from the oldest to the latest articles. The adjacency matrix of
a directed citation network contains the elements Aij = 1, if there is a link from i to j, and Aij=
0, if there is none.
The articles with a higher number of citations (higher grade) could be seen as the most
influential in a given field at a given time: it is clear that a greater number of people used
them in order to write down their own articles. At the same time, the series of the most
influential articles reflects, up to a point, the sequence of the most important discoveries,
techniques and tools in an ever-changing field. The time-line reflects the direction of the links
(“who’s citing whom?”) and the time order of the discoveries and tools that pass on to later
users.
We imagine that during a revolutionary time, the contents and make-up of the most influential
subsets of articles must change quite radically. Those articles that introduce new tools and
techniques and make possible new exemplar models will more likely be quoted by a growing
number of the participants in the new paradigm. In the NCR, this process did not occur in a
cumulative and linear way.
In order to recover the actual pathways coming from the dispute that happened in the different
fields affected by the revolutionary change, we have taken a collection of articles by Lucas
and Sargent (1981) as an approximate representative example of the NCR revolutionary
promise which, according to its editors, abridged the best articles that foreshadowed the
revolution and its greatest theoretical and technical achievements up to that date; and, we
follow its development during the 1976 – 2013 period. It is an assortment of articles which
include candidate models for new exemplar models in the course of the revolution. Not all
of these would enjoy success. In fact, only a fraction of the initial models managed to reach
exemplar model status. In these kinds of processes, causality is inverted: the future dictates
the fortunes of the past proposals.

8
The Lucas and Sargent volume included a wide spectrum of fields (macroeconomics,
econometrics, economic policy, monetary policy, microeconomics), theories (equilibrium,
rational expectations, prices) and techniques (optimal control, neutrality tests, causality).
To better deal with the dispute initial phase, we chose the two volumes of Mankiw & Romer
(1991a and 1991b) as representative of the neo-Keynesian resistance to the advance of the
NCR. It was not exactly a counter-promise. Accepting the demands of optimizing agents,
and of random and dynamic formalization required by the revolutionaries, the neo-Keynesian
economists decided to confront the NCs promise by choosing other assumptions, building
alternative microeconomic foundations and sticking to some facts that the revolutionaries
had deemed irrelevant. The formal constraints and the style of discourse were the same. They
put on hold the assumptions, observed facts, microeconomic foundations, and the part played
by the empirical approach.
In order to capture highly cited articles that were not to be found in any of the initial nuclei,
we took in all the articles that cited the most-cited articles, and we picked out the most cited
of them. These articles reflected the impact of interactions from outside the pathways of the
revolutionary promise, and the initial resistance to the promise. For example, they showed
the unanticipated changes and notable events in econometrics and in the interplay between
macroeconomics, economic policy, and econometrics which ought to provide for the new
macroeconometrics field and would transform empirical practice in the entire profession,
permanently.3
In the processes of revolutionary change, the active participants who converge towards a
particular alternative, end up organized into communities. As a point of departure, we see
communities as groupings of articles which have more citation and cocitation links between
them than they do with other articles not in the grouping. To extract the resulting
communities, we applied the powerful algorithm for community by Blondel et al. (2008).
However, to better understand the emergence of new communities, and how they cluster up
across time, it is more effective to regard them as the clustering of links between the most
cited contemporary articles. That’s to say, through cocitation networks. Cocitation networks
are not just a variant on citation networks. They explain different structures and processes
and their topology is different than that found in citation networks. Whilst citation networks
recognize the citation of one article by another, cocitation networks recognize:
[T]he citation together of papers by later papers. The historical progression is then
not as flow of “critical events”, but as a changing cluster of such events. (Small,
1977, 140, our italics.)
A cocitation network is a network in which two nodes (articles) i and j are cited at the same
time by a sequence of articles, situated in position k. The co-citation of articles i and j is the

3
Our final network included 80,037 nodes (articles) and 196, 418 links. We used the Repec/Ideas database.

9
number of k articles that cite both. That number is the weighting associated with each of the
detected links. Generally, a cocitation network is a non-directed, weighted network, linked
to a citation network. A adjancency matrix of a directed network has elements Aik Ajk = 1 if
both i and j are cited by k; and, 0 (zero) otherwise. To the extent to which a couple of articles
are cocited by a higher number of older articles, the connection between the two will be
stronger.
The cocitation of two or more articles by a number of articles, reflects the existence of a
common scientific basis for cluster of practitioners. Many articles, sometimes in their
thousands, that cocite a limited number of articles, indicate a common field of knowledge as
practiced by scientific commnunity linked by shared foundations. If this community grows
out of a revolutionary process, the emergence of a new cocitation network, or radical change
in the pre-existing network, can be a suitable indicator that a revolution has occurred.
The most pertinent matter to our problem is that the citation networks and the cocitation
networks develop in an articulate fashion through interdependent processes which can
change their respective configurations. The evidence in connection with the development of
communities will be understood through the cocitation networks illustrated by eight time
windows of five years each (bar the last, being less than five years) 1976 – 1980; 1981 –
1985; 1986 – 1990; 1991 – 1995; 1996 – 2000; and 2001-2005; 2006 -20010, and 2011 –
2013.
Let us suppose that the citation and cocitation networks evolve in an articulate fashion, in
accordance with a complex system that in each period t ε T (i) adds a number of new articles
to the list of published articles, (ii) adds a number of citations to previously published
articles, and (iii) adds a number of cocitations for a subset of published articles in t – n, with
n = 1,….., N.

2.1 Recursive process of citation growth

We wish to know how the number of citations and cocitations evolves for each of the articles
cited and cocited in t ε T and the groupings generated by both, on the one side, and what are
the processes that lead to the growth of citations for previously published articles.

10
Fig. 1 Topology of the citation and cocitation networks. In the first, there are directed links between
pairs and nodes. In the second, a link is the effect of simultaneous citations made by an article C of
A and B: A – B.

The junction between both networks generates the following recoursive process. The number
of citations from previously cited articles increases with the directed closures activated by
the incidence of new cocitations. Let articles A, B and C put in chronological order of
publication: A is the oldest, B the second oldest, and C the latest. If C quotes A and B there
will be another cocitation. A directed closure would occur if node C quotes B (B → C), B
cites A (A → B), and C cites A (A → C). This last link adds a reference to A, the oldest
article of the three.

Fig.2 Cocitation with memory (a directed closure in which we find the A → B link), and without
memory: C quotes independently A and B. The process with memory is a directed closure or
‘complete triangle’.

For the directed closure to take place, the A → B link must exist. Whenever an A – B type
link exists in the citation network, and a new cocitation has been added, we could say that A
has a new quotation by means of a directed closure recursive process. If we count all the real
directed closures, including the potential for A → B links, we would have all the additional
citations that have come by way of the recursive process, as described. This process can be
widely applied to a great number of highly cited articles, by means of introducing nodes D,
E & F published at later dates.

11
 B E

A F

C D

Fig 3. Recursive process of citation growth by directed closure. The articles have been published in
chronological order: A is the first, F is the last. A-B-C is a directed closure. A→ –C happens because
A → B has already happened in the past and C discovered A via B → C. Something similar happens
with B and C and D. Notice that all the potential directed closures have been fulfilled in this process.
It may not have happened that way. The process with memory takes into account of the adding of
citation to older articles by new articles. In the cocitation network we only see the link from A→ B
(non-directed). The process set out in fig. 3 happens in the citation network.

In order to quantify the recursive process’ impact, we define i, j, k as the nodes (articles) that
arrive in chronological order to make up a triangle or directed closure in the directed citation
network. Each one of them represents a position: i represents all the nodes that came in first;
j refers to those added at a later date, and may or may not have quoted i; and k refers to the
last ones to be added to the network. The sequence of articles that quote i and j is defined as
k = 1,….,K. An ij link happens when a j article quotes from an i article that has been published
prior. The three may reach a directed closure, or triangle, if given the links ij and jk, the link
ik also exists.
In a co-citation network g, a k article cites articles i and j forming the jk and ik links that we
now write as 𝑔"# 𝑔$# . To know how many co-citations a triangle might cause, we count all
the potential triangles 𝑔"# 𝑔$# and all the closed triangles 𝑔"# 𝑔$# 𝑔"$ . The proportion of closed
triangles over potential triangles would be the proportion of directed closure in the process,
equivalent to the impact on the recursive quotation process:

12
 *:+-*,)-+ ()* (+* ()+
𝐶=
*:+-*,)-+ ()* (+*

Only a fraction of all potential triangles would ultimately become closed triangles in the
process. The magnitude of successful closures would depend upon the innovative contents
or upon the quality of the articles already published, and the researchers’ decisions. The most
cited would be those that contain exemplar models, or new tools useful in building new
models. The advent of new innovative articles will displace the most quoted articles from
before, passing them into ‘old age’ and taking their place as ‘most cited’ articles.
The recursive addition process for quotes by directed closures grew up to a maximum of 0.34
in window 3 (1991 – 1995), dropped back a little in the following time window (1996-2000),
and then stabilized around 0.23 – 0.24 in the following windows, with slight increase in the
last two. (Figure 4.) The recursive process of citation growth is different from the preferential
links proposed by Barabási and Albert (1999). It suggests an alternative explanation for the
growth in citaton of older articles and proposes a mechanism based on decisions taken by
future writers about the relevance of past articles in writing their own. At the same time, it
suggests a non-mechanistic explanation for the ‘aging’ of the articles. The articles do not age
continuously at a fixed rate: they age suddenly as a result of new articles appearing that do
not depend on the former ones, and precipitate movement along new paths. This is what
happens, on a grander scale, in scientific revolutions.

Directed Triangles

0.3

0.2

0.1

2 4 6 8

Fig. 4: Evolution of the increase of successful directed closures over all potential closures. A result
of the recursive citation growth process by time windows.

13
3. Discussion of results
The fusion of communities, formerly separate, is a product of the emergence of articles with
innovative contents – techniques, tools, substantive facts – which are cited or used by writers
belonging to different and, until this moment in time, separate communities. Articles with
high levels of in betweenness play a role as bridges between communities, even between
specializations that are quite different and apart from one another. What matters is not so
much the individual centrality of each article but, rather, the centrality or impact of the
articles that in their turn quote highly quoted articles. The measure of intermediation
associated with Bonacich’s (1987) centrality reflects the impact of the articles that bring
actors from different fields together. The most co-cited articles are also the most bridging
articles with the highest levels of Bonacich’s centrality. These are the ones that fulfil a
bridging role between separate communities, and contribute to the eventual emergence,
through fusion, of the new communities.
Some innovative articles’ high in-betweenness power is an indication of the changes brought
about in a discipline by the growing impact of innovative articles and by the interconnected
nature of scientific production. Articles that, at first, belonged to a community are quoted and
cocited by writers from rival or different communities, thus pushing along the fusion of
communities and the appearance of new groupings. A new order appears because of the
complex evolution process of interaction between scientists in a context of dispute.
The process is as follows: the changes in the fields reached by the revolutionary impetus are
transferred to other fields by means of the transfer of methods, techniques and jargon in a
contentious setting. It is not simply a process of contagion. What passes from one field to
another is not comparable with what is passed on by a contagious disease, or financial
vulnerability: that which is passed on is transformed by he internal dynamics in each of these
fields.
As we are working with directed networks, Bonacich’s normal centrality measures do not
produce reasonable results (Bonacich & Lloyd 2001). Therefore, we chose centrality α, as
proposed in the quoted article, centrality α is founded on the idea that each node (article) has
its own status which does not depend upon its connection to other nodes. Something rather
like the ‘fitness’ model in the Barabasi and Bianconi (2002). In citation networks, the fitness
or status is associated with most cited articles’ innovative contents. The nodes’ centrality α
in a graph is defined as the solution to the matrix equation below

x = α t(A)x + e,

in which A is the graph’s adjacency matrix (not necessarily symmetrical); e is the exogenous
sources vector of the state of the nodes, and α is the relative importance of the endogenous

14
factors versus exogenous ones. Applying centrality α allowed us to find the articles with the
greatest in-betweenness capacity. (Table 1)

Table 1. Bonacich centrality index for articles with the highest in-betweenness. The first three (Sims
1980b, Bernanke & Blinder 1992, Blanchard & Quah 1989) belong to the macroeconometrics
community. Galí & Gertler represent the growing influence of the NK DSGE models. Granger (1969)
is a a “sleeping beauty” that links econometricians and macroeconomists from different times and
persuasions.

In the NCR, the resulting pathways had two basic components: the state of the fields
disturbed at the moment when the revolutionary processes erupted onto the scene, and the
interaction between the revolutionary promise and that which was already going on in all the
fields affected by the revolution. Conventional wisdom believes that the situation was about
the same in all the fields. The empirical evidence suggests that it didn’t really go that way.
Let’s take a look at what went on at the very beginning of the revolution and the pathways
generated by the promise of success in some fields of economics and econometrics.

3.1 Periphery and revolution

Take GSIA’s situation in Carnegie-Mellon in the Sixties and early Seventies. For various
reasons, several economists, from very different tendencies, were working at GSIA.
Modigliani and Holt were Keynesian; Lucas, Muth and Sargent were trying out their own
pathways, and they had in hand the Rational Expectations hypothesis – one of Muth’s
inventions that would prove crucial to the launching and stabilizing of the NCs’ revolutionary
promise. They lived and worked with Herbert A. Simon, a cross-disciplinary scientist and
one of the fathers of AI.
Though nobody casts doubt on AI’s impact on Lucas’ vision, the way in which Lucas et al
applied AI to economics was also controversial and matter for intense dispute. Simon
severely criticized the way in which Lucas and associates applied it their new economic
vision (Simon 1996). The differences include mutually exclusive visions in respect of
rationality imputed to real economic agents and the handling of the empirical dimension in
economics. Economists tending to favour the formalist and mathematic approach led by Muth
and Lucas allied themselves with the operations research specialists. Simon, fed up with the
school’s diversion into abstract mathematics, decided to move to the Psychology department
(Simon 1996, 250 – 251)
Both the economics school at Carnegie-Mellon and Economics Department at Minnesota
University shared a crucial revolutionary characteristic: They were marginal and out on the

15
profession’s periphery. It was no mere chance: it was easier to expound and develop dissident
economics far from the epicenter of orthodoxy, in schools and faculties that lay far from the
geographic heartlands of the profession.
The coming together of Sargent, Chris Sims and Neil Wallace, plus the later arrival of Finn
Kydland and Ed Prescott at Minnesota did not produce a single, cumulative result. The rivalry
over the reconstruction of econometrics and macroeconomic theory, launched out of
Minnesota, gave rise to at least three different pathways: the rational expectation unification
proposal and Sargent and associates’ econometric methods; Sims’ VARs tool with its impact
on monetary policy evaluation, and the RBC; and, Kydland and Prescott’s calibration.

3.2 The econometricians’ revolt

The criticisms of Sims (1980, 1982), Hendry (1983), and Leamer (1983) about econometrics
and economic policy assessment were not simply derived from Lucas’ manifesto: rather, they
were independent of this, derived from different problematics and associate with different
practices. It was more to do with their own dissatisfaction with what they, as econometricians,
were currently doing; and, with their role in the growth of economic knowledge, adding to
the sum of human knowledge, as much in micro- and macro-economics as in the junction
between economics and econometrics. Even if one looks back and checks the econometric
practices of the three, one finds that it was already growing apart from the standard practice
of the Seventies. The objects of their criticism, like their techniques and statistical
foundations and, indeed, their solutions, differed from one another, just as they all differed
from Lucas’ critique.
From a strategic point of view, what was at stake was econometrics survival as an
independent practice. More exactly, what was at stake was the game that econometricians
and theoretical economists had been playing out. Eeconometricians — Hendry, Sims and
Leamer— and macroeconomists —Lucas, Prescott and Sargent— were of one mind in
thinking that econometric practice could not carry on in the same vein. But, whilst Lucas and
Prescott’s project proposed the destruction of econometrics in its contemporary form, the
critical econometricians were looking for an absolutely radical change in practice, so long as
they stuck to the golden rule: greater agreement among predictions and observed facts and
positing the independence of those facts.
Kydland and Prescott’s victory in macro-economics was offset by Sims and Leamer’s victory
in econometrics. The interaction of the two victories changed permanently the relationship
between Econometrics and macro-economics: the econometricians went on to put forward
their own theories and establish the facts that everyone should approach from their own point

16
of view. Nonetheless, the assessment of economic policy trended towards what Kydland and
Prescott had originally suggested (1977).

3.3 Evolution of the revolutionary promise

Let us now take a look at the evolution of macroeconomic, econometric, and economic policy
specialization communities during the eight time windows, as set out above. The results of
these intertwined processes are briefly reviewed in the following figure. Each of the graphs
shows the evolution of the communities in terms of their structures.

17
 18
Figure 5. Evolution of communities found in the eight time windows. In pink, community 1 (NCR
hardcore); in green, community 2 (macroeconometrics); in blue community 3 (NK and
econometricians); in orange community 4 (NK hardcore), and in yellow community 5 (mix induced
by the rise of the DSGE models). Communities’ composition by most cited articles is in Table 2.

The communities are made out not of authors but, rather, articles. The articles with a larger
number of links within them than with the remaining articles in the network are a trace of a
scientific community. Two communities can be regarded as divergent when the tools,
models, substantive facts and assumptions of either are not used by the other community to
produce new models and tools. In other words, when each community’s output does not feed
into the progress of the other, and there is, thus, no intellectual connectivity. If these
communities remain the same, and separated by time, and do not integrate with one another,
through the appearance of articles with high levels of in-betweenness which bring articles
together from communities heretofore separate, it is clear that the revolution has a somewhat
limited number of practitioners in that field, so generating a divergent evolution.
Community 1 brings the first revolutionaries and their followers together in the first time
window. Their evolution is quite obvious: Sargent’s initial influence, and his programme as
set out for macroeconomics and econometrics fades gradually away, thus opening a path for
the Kydland and Prescott’s powerful impact of calibration methods and RBC theory. With
the passage of time, the original community is reduced to only three very influential articles,
with very heavy weighted co-citation links: Kydland & Prescott (1977), and Barro & Gordon
(1983a, 1983b). This threesome of articles, together with Lucas’ famous (1976) critique are
the ones which survived through time and have stayed together during their evolution. These
are the hardcore of the NCR and those which best represent the revolutionary promise.
Whilst the manifestos of Lucas (1976), Lucas and Sargent (1979), and Kydland & Prescott
(1977) plus the Lucas and Sargent collection of (1981) which founded econometrics and
Rational Expectations in a harmonic whole, were holding out the promise of revolutionary
success, the methodological articles of Kydland & Prescott (1982), and Prescott (1982) &
(1986) defined the setting in motion of a practice that proposed changing radically, and
forever, the macroeconomists’ empirical practice.
Kydland & Prescott established a total break from the relationship between theory and
empirical observation that had been held in high regard, up to this juncture in time, by
economists, and realized Lucas’ promise to construct analogous or artificial economies, the
programmes of which they were able to feed with the appropriate data input to produce
similar results to those seen in in real economies.
Community 2 (in green) shows the evolution of the econometricians’ revolt, along with the
study of the effects of monetary policy, which ends in the fusion of macroeconomics and
econometrics. This ‘revolt’ was working at the junction point of monetary policy, macro-
economics and econometrics. Their fusion allowed room for the emergence of

19
macroeconometrics as a separate economic field. Sims’ influence is easily seen, both because
of the new techniques contributed (VARs and SVARs, Bayesian VARs) as because of the
substantive facts uncovered by him and by whoever worked on the pathways opened up by
his coordinating between econometrics and monetary policy.
Sims generated a series of new tools, distilled in their essence by Blanchard & Quah (1989),
and Bernanke & Blinder (1992) plus Bernanke & Gerstler (1995), in their highly cited
articles. Those four articles received the highest in-betweenness coefficients (see table 1):
they linked together writers and articles from divergent communities through the production
of tools and the finding of facts which contributed to the work, practical and theoretical, of
many macroeconomists and econometricians. The extent to which these articles turned out
being crucial as intermediary bridge-builders between divergent communities may be
observed in Bonacich’s centrality register for articles with great in betweenness powers: Sims
(1980b), Bernanke & Blinder (1992), Blanchard & Quah (1989), Sims (1992), Kydland &
Prescott (1977), Barro & Gordon (1983a, 1983b), Bernanke & Gertler (1995), Gali &
Gerstler (1998) and, Granger (1969). (See table 2, Appendix 1.)
Granger’s (1969) article is a separate case. Granger (1969) appeared as one of the few
econometric articles in Lucas & Sargent’s (1981) volume. At first, it was sparingly cited.
Later on, from the success of Sims (1980) article and associated ones, Granger’s citation rate
began to increase. With the recent rise in empirical economics, Granger citations hit a new
high – nearly fifty years after it came out: quite remarkable!4
Community 4 is made up of NK economists who contested the NC’s challenge by forming
alternative microeconomic foundations, and the rehabilitation of substantive facts, which
had been purged from macroeconomic practice by the NCR. The basic kernel of the NK
community consisted of a series of articles, the catalyst to which was a highly citated article
by Stiglitz & Weiss (1981) about credit rationing; and an article by Fischer’s (1977) about
the effects of long term wage contracts on best-practice monetary policy, with rational
expectations. The microfoundations and the modeling style proposed by these writers were
the basis for the near-simultaneous publication of highly cited articles by Bernanke’s (1983)
Blinder & Stieglitz (1983), Dymond & Dybing (1983), Myers & Mahuf (1984). Across three
decades, this well interconnected nucleus has contributed to the composition of thousands of
articles and models in the revived NK tradition. At the same time, this nucleus took by storm
the modeling of monetary, financial and credit problems, which had been abandoned by the
NCs. (See table 3, Appendix 1.)
Communities 3 & 5 have more complex trajectories, set in train by the NCR. Up to window
7, community 3 was made up of NK articles. The last window (8) turned into a paring away
of community 2 connected with the emergence of DSGE models at the turn of the century.
In contrast, community 5, which only emerged in window 7, took in articles originating in
communities 1 and 4. These complex trajectories reflect the melting away of the borders
between NKs and NCs due to the emergence of the DSGE models.

4
Redner (2005) found five articles from the Physical Review that came back from oblivion 40 years later.

20
Figure 6 shows the citations aggregate evolution of the five communities found. In the last
two windows, note the effect produced by the global financial crisis: the level of citations of
the NCR and RBC hardcore (C1) plummets almost vertically; there is an increase in the citing
of NK articles (C4); and a rise in citations for the macroeconometric community (C2),
followed by a drop which, nonetheless, does not take away its status as the most cited of all.

Figure 6. In the left the evolution of the number of articles by community and time windows. To the right
the aggregate number of citations by communities and time windows. Community colours on the right of
both.

The connecting role of the articles that introduced tools, techniques and substantive facts is
clear. They can contribute to solving problems in communities separated by values, exemplar
models and divergent trajectories. We are referring to articles like Sims (1980b), Blanchard
& Quah (1989), and Bernanke & Blinder (1992) to mention but a few of the best known and
most cited. (see Table 2). They were crucial in two ways. First, they allowed for the unfolding
of the new communities – one example being macroeconometrics. Second, they generated
the new exemplar models, as the NK DSGE ones, which unified macroeconomists’ practice.
The NCR’s good news reached the very doorstep of fields and specializations which already
had the seeds of change within them. Sims’ criticism of the contemporary econometric
practice arrived well flagged up from beforehand; and, his article on nominal income causal
determination by money (Sims 1972) was an early heralding of things to come. In much the
same way, Leamer’s (1983) and Hendry’s (1980) criticisms found resonance with the
practice of those in charge of policy evaluation and state intervention. Collectively, the

21
altering of the econometric field led to a transformation in the mutual relationship between
macroeconomics and econometrics, and between a priori theory and substantive facts.

4. Conclusions
Seen from the standpoint of the promise that was the revolutionaries’ catalyst, the endgame
and denouement of the NCR turned out to be unexpected and surprising. Its effects pushed
the boundaries of macroeconomics, contributed to the creation of macroeconometrics, and
the new empirical economics by means of radical transformation in econometric practice,
realized as a consequence of the econometrists’ rebellion against the identification and
specification methods that ruled in the 1970.
The activation of different economic fields with the arrival of the revolutionary promise
brought in a state of permanent dispute about economists’ and econometrists’ empirical and
theoretical practice. Given that one of the NCR’s aims was the radical transformation of the
relationship between econometrics, macroeconomics and economic policy evaluation, the
struggle concentrated on the best option for changing these failed relationships. This debate
went beyond macroeconomics into econometrics and further on into other fields of
economics until reaching an end that was quite the opposite of what the revolutionaries had
expected: instead of the total victory of a priori theory, they ended up self-imposing scientific
practices that have returned status to the establishment and stabilization of facts.
In macroeconomics, the convergence of the DSGE models, NK microeconomic
fundamentals and the substantive facts coming out of macroeconometrics produced the NK
DSGE models. The distance between these and the models connected with Kydland and
Prescott’s radical proposal is obvious.
Revolutions arouse forces and come across trajectories that do not figure in their objectives
and promises. The NCR was no exception: the forces unleashed upon starting the fight for
control of macroeconomists’ and econometricians’ practice transformed the division of
labour in contemporary economics and, in a paradoxical twist, drove the economists’ practice
far from the a priori ideal.

22
References
Arthur, B. 2015. Complexity and the Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barabási, A., and R. Albert., 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286: 509-
512.

Barro, R. & D. B. Gordon., 1983a. Rules, Discretion and Reputation in a Model of Monetary Policy.
Journal of Monetary Economics 12: 101-121.

Barro, R. & D. B. Gordon., 1983b. A Positive Theory of Monetary Policy in a Natural Rate Model.
Journal of Political Economy 91(4): 589-610

Bernanke, B. 1983., Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in Propagation of the Great
Depression. American Economic Review 73(3): 257-276.

Bernanke, B. and A. Blinder., 1992. The federal funds rate and the channels of monetary transmission.
American Economic Review 80: 901-921.

Bernanke, B. & M. Gertler., 1995. Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy
Transmission. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 27-48.

Blanchard, O. J. and Quah, D., 1989. The dynamic effects of aggregate demand and supply
disturbances. American Economic Review, 79(4): 655–673.

Blondel, V., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., and Lefebvre, E., 2008. Fast unfolding of communities
in large networks. Journal of Statistics Mechanics: Theory and Experiment.

Bonacich, P., 1986. Power and Centrality: A Familiy of Measures. American Journal of Sociology
92: 1170-1182.

Bonacich, P. and P. Lloyd., 2001. Eigenvector-like measures of centrality for asymmetric relations.
Social Networks 23: 191-201.

Calhoun, C., 1980. Community: Toward a Variable Conceptualization for Comparative Research.
Social History 5: 105-29.

Christiano, L., Eichenbaum M., and C. Evans., 2005b. Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of
a shock to monetary policy. Journal of Political Economy 113(1): 1-45.


Chistiano, L. A., 2012. Christopher Sims and vector autoregressions. The Scandinavian Journal of
Economics 114: 1082-1104.
De Vroey, M. 2015. A History of macroeconomics from Keynes to Lucas and beyond. Cambridge
University Press.
Diamond, D. W. & Dybing, P. H., 1983. Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance and Liquidity. Journal of
Political Economy 93: 401-419.
Galí, J. & M. Gertler. 1999. Inflation Dynamics: A structural econometric analysis. Journal of
Monetary Economics 44: 195-222.
Hendry, David F., 1980. Econometrics— Alchemy or Science? Economica 47(188): 387–406.

23
Klamer, A., 1983. Conversations with Economists. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Kuhn, T. S., 1962/2012. The structure of scientific revolutions. 50th Anniversary Edition with an
introductory essay by Ian Hacking. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kydland, F. & E. Prescott., 1977. Rules rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans.
Journal of Political Economy 85: 473-492.
Leamer, E., 1983. Let’s Take the Con Out of Econometrics. American Economic Review, 73(1): 31–
43.
Leijonhufvud, A., 2006. The Uses of the Past. Department of Economics, University of Trento:
Discussion Paper No 3.
Lucas, R.E. Jr., 1972. Expectations and the Neutrality of Money, Journal of Economic Theory 4: 103-
124.
Lucas, R.E. Jr., 1976. Econometric policy evaluation: A critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference
Series on Public Policy, 1 (1): 19-46.
Lucas, R. E. Jr., 1980. Methods and problems in business cycle theory. In: Studies in business cycle
theory: 271-296.
Lucas, R. E. and T. J. Sargent., 1981. Rational expectations and econometric practice. London:
George Allen and Unwin.
Mankiw, N. G. and D. Romer., 1991. New Keynesian Economics. Volume 1: Imperfect competition
and sticky prices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mankiw, N. G. and D. Romer., 1991. New Keynesian Economics. Volume 2: Coordination failures
and real rigidities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myers, S. C. & Majluf, N. S., 1984. Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions when Firms Have
Information that Investors Do not Have. Journal of Financial Economics 13(2): 187-221.
Prescott, E., 1986. Theory ahead of Business Cycle Measurement. Carnegie-Rochester Conference
Series on Public Policy 25: 11-44.
Price, D.J.S., 1965. Networks of Scientific Papers. Science 149: 510-515
Price, D.J.S., 1976. A General Theory of Bibliometric and Other Cumulative Advantage Processes.
Journal of the American Society of Information Science 27: 292-306.
Redner, S., 2005. Citation Statistics from 110 Years of Physical Review. Physics Today 58: 49-54.
Simon, H. A. 1996. Models of My Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sims, C., 1972. Income, Money and Causality. American Economic Review 62(4): 540-552.
Sims C., 1980. Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48: 1-48
Sims, C., 1982. Policy analysis with econometric models. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 1:
107-152.
Sims, C., 1992. Interpreting the macroeconomic time series facts. The effects of monetary policy.
European Economic Review 36: 975-1011.
Small, H., 1977. A Co-Citation of a Scientific Specialty: A Longitudinal Study of Collagen Research.
Social Studies of Science 7: 139-66.

24
Stiglitz, J. E. & A. Weiss., 1981. Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information.
AmericanEconomic Review 35(5): 393-410.
White, H. 2008. Identity and Control: How Social Fomations Emerge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Zimmerman, C. 2016. RePEc/IDEAS. http://repec.org

25
Appendix 1
Time
Community 1
window
RoLu1976, RoBa1976b, RoBa1976a,
FiKyEdPr1977, ThSa1976d, ThSa1973,
1 ThSa1976c, RoBa1978, ThSaNeWa1974,
FrMo1977, JoTa1979, ArOk1975, Fi1975,
StFiFrMo1978
RoLu1976, RoBa1976b, RoBa1976a,
ThSaNeWa1985, FiKyEdPr1977, ThSa1976d,
ThSa1973, ThSa1976c, RoBa1978,
2 DoDiPhDy1983, PeDi1982,
ThSaNeWa1974, FrMo1977, JoTa1979,
ArOk1975, Fi1975, BeMc1982, MaOb1984,
StFiFrMo1978
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
3 LaPeHaThSa1980a, ThSa1976d,
RoBaDaGo1983a
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
4 RoBaDaGo1983a, ThSaNeWa1975, RoBa1976a,
JoTa1979
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
5 RoBaDaGo1983a, RoLu1976, RoHa1978,
StFi1977, OlJeBlNoKi1987, MaObKeRo1995
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
RoBaDaGo1983a, Gr1969, StFi1977, Wo1999,
6 GlRuLaSv1998, MaObKeRo1995,
OlJeBlNoKi1987, JoGaMaGe1998,
ChErDaHeAnLe2000
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
7 KeMuAnShRoVi1989a, CaPr1999,
RoBaDaGo1983a
FiKyEdPr1977, RoBaDaGo1983b,
8 BeBeAlBl1989, ChSi1992, ChSi1972,
RoBaDaGo1983a, RoLu1976
Table 2. Communities of most cited articles composition by time windows.
Community 2
ChSi1980b, ChSI1972, Gr1969,
RoHa1978, LaPeHaThSa1980a,
ThSa1978a, JrRoLuThSa1979,
RoLuEdPr1971, RoLi1979
ChSi1980b, ChSi1972, Gr1969,
RoHa1978, LaPeHaThSa1980a,
ThSa1978a, JrRoLuThSa1979,
RoLuEdPr1971, RoLi1979, BeBe1985
ChSi1980b, RoLu1976, RoHa1978,
RoBa1976b, ChSi1972, RoBa1976a,
Gr1969, ThSaNeWa1975,
EdPr1986, ThSa1978a, SaGrRoSh1980,
RoLuEdPr1971, JoCaGrMa1987,
FrMo1977
ChSi1980b, RoHa1978, RoLu1976,
EdPr1986, Ph1987, ChSi1972,
RoBa1976b, Gr1969, JYCaPe1991,
LaChMaEi1990a, LaPeHaThSa1980a,
OlJeBlDaQu1988, BeBeAlBl1989,
ChRoanDaRo1989
ChSi1980b, OLJeBlDaQu1988, Ph1987,
Gr1969, JYCaPe1991, LaChMaEi1990a,
EdPr1986, JoCaRoSh1987, ChSi1972,
RoBa1976b
ChSi1980b, OlJeBlDaQu1988,
RoLu19876, RoHa1978, BeBeAlBl1989,
JYCaPe1991, LaChMaEiEv1997,
Ph1987, JoCaRoSh1987, PCPh1986,
EdPr1986, LaChMaEi1990a
ChSi1980b, OlJeBlDaQu1988, Gr1969,
RoLu1976, LaChMaEv1997, RoHa1978,
JoCaRoSh1987,JYCaPe1991, Ph1987,
EdPr1986, LaChMaEi1990a, PCPh1986
ChSi1980b, Gr1969, OlJeBlDaQu1988,
BeBeMaGe1995
Tabla 1
Community 3
IaMcRoSo1981, CoAzJoSt1983, ShRo1985,
JoPe1984
CaShJost1984, IaMcRoSo1981, JoTa1979,
OlHa1982, PeDi1982, OlJeBlNoKi1987,
JaYe1984, ShRo1985, GeAkJaYe1985,
KeMuAnShRoVi1989a,
KeMuAnShRoVi1989b, WiDiLaKa1986
CaShJoSt1984, IaMcRoSo1981, AgHo1989,
OlJeBlNoKi1987, KeMuAnShRoVi1989a,
PeDi1982, AKrLaSu1988, JuRoGaSa1986,
OlHa1982, JaYe1984
CaShJoSt1984, AgHo1989,
KeMuAnShRoVi1989a, AlKrLaSu1988,
PeDi1982, IaMcRoSo1981, BeJeFaRo1994,
ChBrJaMe1989
AgHo1989, CaShJoSt1984,
KeMuAnShRoVi1989a, AlKrLaSu1988,
PeDi1982, IaMcRoSo1981,
JoAbFrKrDaMa1999
AgHo1989, CaShJost1984,
JoAbFrKrDaMa1999
RoHa1978, JoCaRoSh1987, Ph1987,
JyCaPe1991, EdPr1986, LaChMaEi1990a,
RaBaAmYa2004, JoCaGrMa1989
Community 4 Community 5
BeBe1983, JoStAnWe1981,
RuCoJoAn1985, OlHa1982, AlBlJoSt1983
BeBe1983, JoStAnWe1981,
DoDiPhDy1982, StMyNiMa1984,
MaGe1988, BrGrJoSt1987b, AlBlJoSt1983
BeBe1983, JoStAnWe1981,
DoDiPhDy1983, StMyNiMa1984,
MaGe1988, BrGrJoSt1987b
BeBeAlBl1989, BeBe1983,
JoStAnWe1981, DoDiPhDy1983,
StMyNiMa1984, BeBeMaGe1988,
AnKaJeStDaWi1991, MaOb1994,
ChRoanDaRo1989
BeBeMaGe1995, JoStAnWe1981,
DoDiPhDy1983, StMyNia1984,
BeBe1983, MieRaRa1994, GlHu1998
StFi1977, Wo1999, GlRuLaSv1998,
BeBeAlBl1989, BeBeMaGe1995, JoGaMaGe1998, MaObKeRo1995,
JoStAnWe1981, DoDiPhDy1983, ChErDaHeAnLe2000, MaBiPeKl2004,
StMyNiMa1984, BeBe1983 OlJeBlNoKi1987, GrMaRiRe2002,
ChPaKeElMc2002
BeBe1983, JostAnWe1981, AgHo1989, GlRuLaSv1998, JoGaMaGe1998,
DoDiPhDy1983, StMyNiMa1984, MaObKeRi1995, ChErDaHeAnLe2000,
CaShJost1984, KeMuAnShRoVi1989a, MaBiPeKl2004, OlJeBlNoKi1987,
NoKiJoMo1997, CaPr1999, GrMaRiRe2002, BaPeChPi2000,
JoAvFrKrDaMa1999 ChPaKeElMc2002
26
 Tabla 1
ID AUTHOR YEAR ARTICLE JOURNAL

RoLu1976 Robert E. Lucas Jr. ### Econometric policy evaluation: A critique Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy
RoBa1976b Robert J. Barro ### unanticipated money growth and unemployment in the united states Queen's University, Department of Economics, Working Papers
RoBa1976a Robert J. Barro ### rational expectations and the role of monetary policy Elsevier, Journal of Monetary Economics

ThSaNeWa1975 Thomas J Sargent & Neil Wallace ### rational expectations, the optimal monetary instrument, and the optimal money supply rule University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

ChSi1972 Christopher A Sims ### money, income, and causality American Economic Association, American Economic Review
ChSi1980b Christopher A Sims ### macroeconomics and reality Econometric Society, Econometrica

Gr1969 C W J Granger ### investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods Econometric Society, Econometrica
FiKyEdPr1977 Finn E Kydland & Edward C Prescott ### rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

ThSa1976d Thomas J Sargent ### a classical macroeconometric model for the united states University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

RoHa1978 Robert E Hall ### stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
LaPeHaThSa1980a Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J. Sargent ### formulating and estimating dynamic linear rational expectations models Elsevier, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control

ThSa1973 Thomas J. Sargent ### rational expectations, the real rate of interest, and the natural rate of unemployment Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

ThSa1978a Thomas J. Sargent ### estimation of dynamic labor demand schedules under rational expectations Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Staff Report
ThSa1976c Thomas J Sargent ### the observational equivalence of natural and unnatural rate theories of macroeconomics University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

JrRoLuThSa1979 Jr. Robert E. Lucas & Thomas J. Sargent ### after keynesian macroeconomics Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Quarterly Review
RoLuEdPr1971 Robert E Lucas & Edward C Prescott ### investment under uncertainty Econometric Society, Econometrica

RoBa1978 Robert J Barro ### unanticipated money, output, and the price level in the united states University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
ThSaNeWa1974 Thomas J. Sargent & Neil Wallace ### rational expectations and the theory of economic policy Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Working Papers

JoStAnWe1981 Joseph E Stiglitz & Andrew Weiss ### credit rationing in markets with imperfect information American Economic Association, American Economic Review
FrMo1977 Franco Modigliani ### the monetarist controversy; or, should we forsake stabilization policies? Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Economic Review

BeBe1983 Ben S Bernanke ### nonmonetary effects of the financial crisis in propagation of the great depression American Economic Association, American Economic Review
IaMcRoSo1981 Ian M McDonald & Robert M Solow ### wage bargaining and employment American Economic Association, American Economic Review

JoTa1979 John B Taylor ### staggered wage setting in a macro model American Economic Association, American Economic Review

DoDiPhDy1983 Douglas W. Diamond & Philip H. Dybvig ### bank runs, deposit insurance, and liquidity Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Quarterly Review
ArOk1975 Arthur M. Okun ### inflation: its mechanics and welfare costs Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

PeDi1982 Peter A Diamond ### aggregate demand management in search equilibrium University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
CoAzJoSt1983 Costas Azariadis & Joseph E Stiglitz ### implicit contracts and fixed price equilibria MIT Press, The Quarterly Journal of Economics

RuCoJoAn1985 Russell Cooper & John Andrew ### coordinating coordination failures in keynesian models Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers

ShRo1985 Sherwin Rosen ### implicit contracts: a survey American Economic Association, Journal of Economic Literature
OlHa1982 Oliver Hart ### a model of imperfect competition with keynesian features MIT Press, The Quarterly Journal of Economics

EdPr1986 Edward C. Prescott ### theory ahead of business cycle measurement Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Staff Report
RoBaDaGo1983a Robert J. Barro & David B. Gordon ### rules, discretion and reputation in a model of monetary policy Elsevier, Journal of Monetary Economics

SaGrRoSh1980 Sanford J. Grossman & Robert J. Shiller ### the determinants of the variability of stock market prices National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers

RoBaDaGo1983b Robert J Barro & David B Gordon ### a positive theory of monetary policy in a natural rate model University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
JoCaGrMa1987 John Campbell & Gregory Mankiw ### are output fluctuations transitory? Harvard University Department of Economics, Scholarly Articles
CaShJoSt1984 Carl Shapiro & Joseph E Stiglitz ### equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device American Economic Association, American Economic Review

StMyNiMa1984 Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf ### corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have informationthat investors do not have National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers

OlJeBlNoKi1987 Olivier Jean Blanchard & Nobuhiro Kiyotaki ### monopolistic competition and the effects of aggregate demand American Economic Association, American Economic Review
JaYe1984 Janet L Yellen ### efficiency wage models of unemployment American Economic Association, American Economic Review

GeAkJaYe1985 George A Akerlof & Janet L Yellen ### a near-rational model of the business cycle, with wage and price intertia MIT Press, The Quarterly Journal of Economics

MaGe1988 Mark Gertler ### financial structure and aggregate economic activity: an overview Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Proceedings
KeMuAnShRoVi1989a Kevin M Murphy & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W Vishny ### industrialization and the big push University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

Ph1987 P C B Phillips ### time series regression with a unit root Econometric Society, Econometrica
JYCaPe1991 J.Y. Campbell & P. Perron ### pitfalls and opportunities: what macroeconomics should know about unit roots Princeton, Department of Economics - Econometric Research Program, Papers

LaChMaEi1990a Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum ### current real business cycle theories and aggregate labor market fluctuations Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues
AgHo1989 P. Aghion & P. Howitt ### a model of growth through creative destruction Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics, Working papers

OlJeBlDaQu1988 Olivier Jean Blanchard & Danny Quah ### the dynamic effects of aggregate demand and supply disturbances National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers

BeBeAlBl1989 Ben S. Bernanke & Alan S. Blinder ### the federal funds rate and the channels of monetary transmission Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Working Papers
ChRoanDaRo1989 Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer ### does monetary policy matter? a new test in the spirit of friedman and schwartz National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Chapters

AlKrLaSu1988 Alan B Krueger & Lawrence H Summers ### efficiency wages and the inter-industry wage structure Econometric Society, Econometrica
JuRoGaSa1986 Julio J Rotemberg & Garth Saloner ### a supergame-theoretic model of price wars during booms American Economic Association, American Economic Review

StFi1977 Stanley Fischer ### wage indexation and macroeconomics stability Elsevier, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy
JoCaRoSh1987 John Y Campbell & Robert J Shiller ### cointegration and tests of present value models University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

BeBeMaGe1995 Ben S. Bernanke & Mark Gertler ### inside the black box: the credit channel of monetary policy transmission National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers

MaObKeRo1995 Maurice Obstfeld & Kenneth Rogoff ### exchange rate dynamics redux University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
AnKaJeStDaWi1991 Anil K. Kashyap & Jeremy C. Stein & David W. Wilcox ### monetary policy and credit conditions: evidence from the composition of external finance Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), Finance and Economics Discussion Series

MaOb1994 Maurice Obstfeld ### the logic of currency crises National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers
LaChMaEiChEv1997 Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum & Charles L. Evans ### modeling money Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues

Wo1999 M. Woodford ### optimal monetary policy inertia Stockholm - International Economic Studies, Papers
PCPh1986 P.C.B. Phillips ### testing for a unit root in time series regression Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques, Cahiers de recherche

LaChMaEi1990 Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum ### current real business cycle theories and aggregate labor market fluctuations Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues
GlRuLaSv1998 Glenn D Rudebusch & Lars E O Svensson ### policy rules for inflation targeting C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers

JoGaMaGe1998 Jordi Galí & Mark Gertler ### inflation dynamics: a structural econometric analysis Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Economics Working Papers

MiPeRaRa1994 Mitchell A. Petersen & Raghuram G. Rajan ### the effect of credit market competition on lending relationships National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers
ChErDaHeAnLe2000 Christopher J. Erceg & Dale W. Henderson & Andrew T. Levin ### optimal monetary policy with staggered wage and price contracts Elsevier, Journal of Monetary Economics

MaBiPeKl2004 Mark Bils & Peter J. Klenow ### some evidence on the importance of sticky prices University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy
GrMaRiRe2002 N. Gregory Mankiw & Ricardo Reis ### sticky information versus sticky prices: a proposal to replace the new keynesian phillips curve MIT Press, The Quarterly Journal of Economics

CaPr1999 Canice Prendergast ### the provision of incentives in firms American Economic Association, Journal of Economic Literature

ChSi1992 Christopher A. Sims ### interpreting the macroeconomic time series facts: the effects of monetary policy Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
RaBaAmYa2004 Ravi Bansal & Amir Yaron ### risks for the long run: a potential resolution of asset pricing puzzles American Finance Association, Journal of Finance

JoCaGrMa1989 John Y. Campbell & N. Gregory Mankiw ### consumption, income, and interest rates: reinterpreting the time series evidence National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers
NoKiJoMo1997 Nobuhiro Kiyotaki & John Moore ### credit cycles University of Chicago Press, Journal of Political Economy

BaPeChPi2000 Barbara Petrongolo & Christopher Pissarides ### looking into the black box: a survey of the matching function London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library, LSE Research Online Documents on Economics

Table 3. Dictionary of most cited articles.

27