{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023591087811271297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.972602739726027, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Specialization, fragmentation, and pluralism in economics

Abstract This paper investigates whether specialisation in research is causing economics to become an increasingly fragmented and diverse discipline with a continually rising number of niche-based research programmes and a declining role for dominant cross-science research programmes. It opens by framing the issue in terms of centrifugal and centripetal forces operating on research in economics, and then distinguishes descriptive from normative pluralism. It reviews recent research regarding the JEL code and economics’ J. B. Clark Award that points towards rising specialisation and fragmentation of research in economics. It then reviews five related arguments that might explain increasing specialisation and fragmentation in economics: (i) Smith’s early division of labour view, (ii) Kuhn’s later thinking about the importance of specialisation, (iii) Heiner’s behavioral burden of knowledge argument, (iv) Ross’s innovation-diffusion analysis and Arthur’s theory of technological change as determinants of specialisation in science, and (v) the effects of space and culture or internationalisation on innovation appropriation. The paper then discusses what descriptive pluralism implies about normative pluralism, and makes a case for multidisciplinarity over interdisciplinarity as a basis for arguments promoting pluralism. The paper closes with brief comments on the issue of specialisation and pluralism in the wider world outside economics and science.