The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Science, Economics of

  • Arthur M. DiamondJr.
Reference work entry


The importance of the economics of science is substantially due to the importance of science as a driver of technology, and technology as a driver of productivity and growth. Believing that science matters, economists have attempted to understand the behaviour of scientists and the operation of scientific institutions. One goal is to see how far science can be understood as a market, and how far the market for science and scientists can be understood as efficient. When inefficiency is found, a related goal is to propose changes in resource levels or incentives, to increase the speed of scientific advance.


Academic tenure Arrow, K. Babbage, C. Becker, G. Cobweb model Compensating differentials Crowding out Economic growth Friedman, M. Griliches, Z. Human capital Implicit contracts Life-cycle investment models Matthew effect Merton, R. Mobility Mokyr, J. National Science Foundation New growth theory Peirce, C. Polanyi. M. Productivity Public goods Rent seeking Research and development Research productivity Romer, P. Schumpeter, J. Science funding Science, economics of Smith, A. Social capital Stigler, G. Technology 

JEL Classifications

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ackermann, R. 1985. Data, instruments and theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. 1990. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy 98: 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alchian, A. 1959. Private property and the relative cost of tenure. In The public stake in union power, ed. P. Bradley. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors, ed. R. Nelson. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. 2004. Foreword. In Reflections of eminent economists, ed. M. Szenberg and L. Ramrattan. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K., and W. Capron. 1959. Dynamic shortages and price rises: The engineer–scientist case. Quarterly Journal of Economics 73: 292–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D., B. Bozeman, K. Combs, M. Feldman, A. Link, D. Siegel, P. Stephan, G. Tassey, and C. Wessner. 2002. The economics of science and technology. Journal of Technology Transfer 27: 155–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Babbage, C. 1830. Reflections on the decline of science in England, and on some of its causes. London: B. Fellowes.Google Scholar
  9. Bartley, W. III. 1990. Unfathomed knowledge, unmeasured wealth: On universities and the wealth of nations. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  10. Biddle, J., and K. Roberts. 1994. Private sector scientists and engineers and the transition to management. Journal of Human Resources 29: 82–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blank, D., and G. Stigler. 1957. The demand and supply of scientific personnel. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Brennan, H., and R. Tollison. 1980. Rent seeking in academia. In Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, ed. J. Buchanan, R. Tollison, and G. Tullock. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brock, W., and S. Durlauf. 1999. A formal model of theory choice in science. Economic Theory 14: 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carmichael, H. 1988. Incentives in academics: Why is there tenure? Journal of Political Economy 96: 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P., and P.A. David. 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23: 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. David, P., B. Hall, and A. Toole. 2000. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy 29: 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond, A. Jr. 1980. Age and the acceptance of cliometrics. Journal of Economic History 40: 838–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond, A. Jr. 1984. An economic model of the life-cycle research productivity of scientists. Scientometrics 6: 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diamond, A. Jr. 1986a. The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology 41: 520–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diamond, A. Jr. 1986b. What is a citation worth? Journal of Human Resources 21: 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diamond, A. Jr. 1988a. The polywater episode and the appraisal of theories. In Scrutinizing science: Empirical studies of scientific change, ed. A. Donovan, L. Laudan, and R. Laudan. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Diamond, A. Jr. 1988b. Science as a rational enterprise. Theory and Decision 24: 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, A. Jr. 1996. The economics of science. Knowledge and Policy 9(2–3): 6–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diamond, A. Jr. 1999. Does federal funding ‘crowd in’ private funding of science? Contemporary Economic Policy 17: 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamond, A. Jr. 2000. The complementarity of scientometrics and economics. In The web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield, ed. B. Cronin and H. Adkins. Medford: Information Today, Inc..Google Scholar
  26. Diamond, A. Jr. 2003. Edwin Mansfield’s contributions to the economics of technology. Research Policy 32: 1607–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diamond, A. Jr. 2004. Zvi Griliches’s contributions to the economics of technology and growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13: 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diamond, A. Jr. 2005. Measurement, incentives, and constraints in Stigler’s economics of science. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 12: 637–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frank, R. 1984. Are workers paid their marginal products? American Economic Review 74: 549–571.Google Scholar
  30. Freeman, R. 1975. Supply and salary adjustments to the changing science manpower market: Physics, 1948–1973. American Economic Review 65: 27–39.Google Scholar
  31. Freeman, S. 1977. Wage trends as performance displays productive potential: A model and application to academic early retirement. Bell Journal of Economics 8: 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Friedman, M. 1981. An open letter on grants. Newsweek, May 18, 99.Google Scholar
  33. Friedman, M. 1994. National science foundation grants for economics: Correspondence. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1): 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goldman, A., and M. Shaked. 1991. An economic model of scientific activity and truth acquisition. Philosophical Studies 63: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goolsbee, A. 1998. Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? American Economic Review 88: 298–302.Google Scholar
  36. Griliches, Z. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25: 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griliches, Z. 1958. Research cost and social returns: Hybrid corn and related innovations. Journal of Political Economy 66: 419–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griliches, Z. 1994. National science foundation grants for economics: Response. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1): 203–205.Google Scholar
  39. Grubel, H., and L. Boland. 1986. On the efficient use of mathematics in economics: Some theory, facts and results of an opinion survey. Kyklos 39: 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hamermesh, D., G. Johnson, and B. Weisbrod. 1982. Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal 49: 472–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hands, D. 1997. Caveat emptor: Economics and contemporary philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science 64(4): S107–S116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hanson, R. 1995. Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus. Social Epistemology 9: 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hull, D. 1988. Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hull, D., P. Tessner, and A. Diamond Jr. 1978. Planck’s principle: Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists? Science 202: 717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaffe, A. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79: 957–969.Google Scholar
  46. Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, H. 1972. Some economic aspects of science. Minerva 10: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kealey, T. 1996. The economic laws of scientific research. New York: St Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kenny, L., and R. Studley. 1995. Economists’ salaries and lifetime productivity. Southern Economic Journal 62: 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kitcher, P. 1993. The advancement of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Laband, D. 1986. Article popularity. Economic Inquiry 24: 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Landes, D. 1969. The unbound prometheus: Technological change 1750 to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Landes, D. 1998. The wealth and poverty of nations. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  54. Lazear, E. 1997. Incentives in basic research. Journal of Labor Economics 15: S167–S197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levin, S., P. Stephan, and M. Walker. 1995. Planck’s principle revisited: A note. Social Studies of Science 25: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levy, D. 1988. The market for fame and fortune. History of Political Economy 20: 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lovell, M. 1973. The production of economic literature: An interpretation. Journal of Economic Literature 11: 27–55.Google Scholar
  58. Mansfield, E. 1968. The economics of technological change. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  59. Mansfield, E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mansfield, E. 1992. Academic research and industrial innovation: A further note. Research Policy 21: 295–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martino, J. 1992. Science funding. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. McDowell, J. 1982. Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: Some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review 72: 752–768.Google Scholar
  63. McKenzie, R. 1979. The economic basis of departmental discord in academe. Social Science Quarterly 59: 653–664.Google Scholar
  64. Merton, R. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mokyr, J. 1990. The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mokyr, J. 2002. The gifts of Athena: Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Mowery, D., and N. Rosenberg. 1989. Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nelson, R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nelson, R. 1986. Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 76: 186–189.Google Scholar
  70. Polanyi, M. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rees, A. 1993. The salaries of Ph.D.’s in academe and elsewhere. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(1): 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rogge, B., and P. Goodrich. 1973. Education in a free society. In Education in a free society, ed. A. Burleigh. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  73. Romer, P. 1986. Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94: 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98(5): S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Romer, P. 2001. Should the government subsidize supply or demand in the market for scientists and engineers? In Innovation policy and the economy, ed. A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rosenberg, N. 1990. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy 19: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rosenberg, N., and L. Birdzell Jr. 1986. How the West grew rich. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  79. Sauer, R. 1988. Estimates of the returns to quality and coauthorship in economic academia. Journal of Political Economy 96: 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  81. Siow, A. 1984. Occupational choice under uncertainty. Econometrica 52: 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Siow, A. 1998. Tenure and other unusual personnel practices in academia. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 14: 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith, A. 1759 [1976]. The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, A. 1776 [1976]. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stephan, P. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  86. Stephan, P. and D. Audretsch, eds. 2000. The economics of science and innovation. 2 vols. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  87. Stephan, P., and S. Levin. 1992. Striking the Mother Lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Stern, S. 2004. Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science 50: 835–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stigler, G. 1965. Statistical studies in the history of economic thought. In Essays in the history of economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  90. Stigler, G. 1976. The scientific uses of scientific biography, with special reference to J.S. Mill. In Papers of the centenary conference: James and John Stuart Mill, ed. J. Robson and M. Laine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  91. Stigler, G. 1978. The literature of economics: The case of the kinked oligopoly demand curve. Economic Inquiry 16(2): 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stigler, G., and G. Becker. 1977. De gustibus non est disputandum. American Economic Review 67(2): 76–90.Google Scholar
  93. Stigler, G., and C. Friedland. 1975. The citation practices of doctorates in economics. Journal of Political Economy 83: 477–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stigler, G., and C. Friedland. 1979. The pattern of citation practices in economics. History of Political Economy 11: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tullock, G. 1966. The organization of inquiry. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tullock, G. 1967. The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal 5: 224–232.Google Scholar
  97. Waldman, M. 1990. Up-or-out contracts: A signaling perspective. Journal of Labor Economics 8: 230–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wible, J. 1998. The economics of science: Methodology and epistemology as if economics really mattered. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur M. DiamondJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.