<p>In their <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/57234/1601">answer</a> to the question <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/57233/1601">Why economics does not believe in data/empirical evidence?</a> SE main user/mod/dog emperor <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/15517/1muflon1">1muflon1</a> linked this image from Angrist et al (2017):</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/GRNDj.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/GRNDj.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>My question is whether there has been any research to try to explain the differences (static or dynamic)<sup>1</sup> between the 'econ branches', and if there are other interesting 'predictors' for which papers are empirical?</p>
<p>E.g.1.; the internet become widely available since the 80s and data gathering in case of online shopping seems much easier, so why is microeconomics refusing<sup>2</sup> to greatly expand its empirical share?</p>
<p>E.g.2.; I have once read that paradigm shifts in academia occur by extinction, as researchers refuse to change their beliefs/mainstay methods much. (User <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/57235/share-of-empirical-papers?noredirect=1#comment93887_57235">Bakerstreet gave the original source</a> as Max Planck.) Is there research on whether the age of the author influences whether the paper is empirical? Not sure how to treat multiauthor papers/papers with a small empirical section.</p>
<hr />
<p><sup>1</sup>By static or dynamic I mean differences in the (static) ratios of the current year are interesting, but also the differences in the (dynamic) change of the ratios during the last 35 years.</p>
<p><sup>2</sup>I understand that microeconomics is not a living being with will and intent.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T11:27:26.087Z
Your quote in E.g.2 is from Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
BakerStreet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T13:58:18.343Z
@BakerStreet I love the original phrasing, thank you so much!
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T14:26:28.730Z
Giskard, I like even more this more succint version: "Science progresses one funeral at a time" :-). See https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14388/context-behind-plancks-a-new-scientific-truth-does-not-triumph-by-convincing-i
BakerStreet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T14:37:44.577Z
Thank you for mentioning my comment in the text of the question.
BakerStreet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T14:38:38.427Z
Credit where it's due!
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T17:49:28.937Z
I don’t have some well researched answer  for the main question but for the microeconomics part it’s likely a Simpsons paradox. Labor economics, public finance and development economics is 90% micro but are considered separate subfields because of the focus.  If you would split from macro separate subjects such as economics of growth etc. you would probably also ended up with lower share of empirical papers. That’s the best guess of the dog emperor :)
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-21T19:18:38.183Z
@1muflon1 Sounds very plausible (my liege)! It could perhaps be investigated by checking if micro experemintal publications decrease when a new journal becomes popular in these fields. Or just by checking if previous years' experimental micro authors move to the new journal/journals in one of the 'experimental fields'.
Giskard
<reference-request><empirical-evidence>
Share of empirical papers
Giskard
# Share of empirical papers

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-12-21)

In their [answer](https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/57234/1601) to the question [Why economics does not believe in data/empirical evidence?](https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/57233/1601) SE main user/mod/dog emperor [1muflon1](https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/15517/1muflon1) linked this image from Angrist et al (2017):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/GRNDj.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/GRNDj.png)

My question is whether there has been any research to try to explain the differences (static or dynamic)1 between the 'econ branches', and if there are other interesting 'predictors' for which papers are empirical?

E.g.1.; the internet become widely available since the 80s and data gathering in case of online shopping seems much easier, so why is microeconomics refusing2 to greatly expand its empirical share?

E.g.2.; I have once read that paradigm shifts in academia occur by extinction, as researchers refuse to change their beliefs/mainstay methods much. (User [Bakerstreet gave the original source](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/57235/share-of-empirical-papers?noredirect=1#comment93887_57235) as Max Planck.) Is there research on whether the age of the author influences whether the paper is empirical? Not sure how to treat multiauthor papers/papers with a small empirical section.

---

1By static or dynamic I mean differences in the (static) ratios of the current year are interesting, but also the differences in the (dynamic) change of the ratios during the last 35 years.

2I understand that microeconomics is not a living being with will and intent.

**Tags:** reference-request, empirical-evidence
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Your quote in E.g.2 is from Max Plank: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  
> **username_0**: @BakerStreet I love the original phrasing, thank you so much!  
> **username_1**: Giskard, I like even more this more succint version: "Science progresses one funeral at a time" :-). See https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/14388/context-behind-plancks-a-new-scientific-truth-does-not-triumph-by-convincing-i  
> **username_1**: Thank you for mentioning my comment in the text of the question.  
> **username_0**: Credit where it's due!  
> **username_2**: I don’t have some well researched answer  for the main question but for the microeconomics part it’s likely a Simpsons paradox. Labor economics, public finance and development economics is 90% micro but are considered separate subfields because of the focus.  If you would split from macro separate subjects such as economics of growth etc. you would probably also ended up with lower share of empirical papers. That’s the best guess of the dog emperor :)  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 Sounds very plausible (my liege)! It could perhaps be investigated by checking if micro experemintal publications decrease when a new journal becomes popular in these fields. Or just by checking if previous years' experimental micro authors move to the new journal/journals in one of the 'experimental fields'.  

---

## 0 answers

