Family Tree of Economics

55 points by icc97 6 years ago | 34 comments
  • Matticus_Rex 6 years ago
    Though I have strong Austrian sympathies myself, this tree drastically overemphasizes their importance (and misclassifies Tyler Cowen, who hasn't been an Austrian since his first year in grad school if I remember correctly). There are a dozen economists who should have been listed on the other side before Pascal Salin, and many dozens in the modern era before Reisman and Salerno. As much as I love Boettke, he's influential primarily as a teacher, which sets him apart from the rest of this group.
    • naravara 6 years ago
      This family tree is just objectively bad. Huge omissions and most of the modern characters included are known more for their pop-econ than real developments in theory.

      I mean, say what you will about the moral and structural claims of Marxism but there was actually a tradition of economic thought there that was at least as coherent as whatever nonsense the Rothbard/Mises fetishists like to indulge in. There aren't even any of the more mainstream, Marxist adjacent theorists like the Georgists.

      Also, everything past Keynes just looks like pop-economists or broad categories and just misses most of the early to mid 20th century. There is no Galbraith, the architect of the New Deal? There aren't any notable Behavioral Economists mentioned, which is one of the most interesting expansions of the field in a generation and will probably have far reaching influence in how the discipline develops in the future. No Piketty, who wrote one of the most influential works of the past decade? NOTHING at all about development economists like Stiglitz, Easterly, or Sachs even though they've had a huge role in shaping how we understand emerging markets and will be even more important as we start trying to figure out how to deal with climate change?

      • yellowbuilding 6 years ago
        Absolutely. In philosophy, and plenty of other fields with central concerns of theory, it’s common that an influence is also someone who one disagrees with, and is responding to. Most the middle area of this chart should be under Marx, and it is outright laughable that Keynes is not.
      • drcode 6 years ago
        Well, there's no arrow on the diagram connecting "Austrian Economics" with "Modern Mainstream Economics", so the diagram doesn't really make them look all that important.
        • notahacker 6 years ago
          It makes them look important in the sense that Boettke is included and literally hundreds of people with more influence on the history of economic thought are omitted.

          As an illustration of where the diagram creator's favoured economists sit in relation to mainstream thought that's fair enough, but as a guide to the overall field of economic thought it's akin to a family tree of "entrepreneur philosophies" which includes Carnegie, Ford, Welch, Buffett, Gates, Jobs, Musk and your friends' early stage startups.

          • Matticus_Rex 6 years ago
            Just the amount of space devoted to them exaggerates their importance to the field (though Menger, Kirzner, and Hayek -- possibly Mises as well -- would still make my cut. But a list that has Salin and not Akerlof or Arrow (just to start with the A's)? He mentions Coase as being on there, but I don't see him, and Coase is literally the most-cited economist of all time.
        • lukifer 6 years ago
          Disappointed that Henry George is absent. ;)
        • mnorton 6 years ago
          Once took a History of Economic Theory course that completely ignored the Austrians. Nice to see them included
          • Mikeb85 6 years ago
            Because they're a tiny footnote and are nonexistent nowadays in academia and economics circles.

            I've seen more about Austrians in the last 2 days on HN than in 4 years of taking Econ in University.

        • CaptainSwing 6 years ago
          I'm disappointed (though not surprised) to see Marx so marginalised. In particular, Schumpeter was in massive debt to Marx, as is quite clear from reading Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. The whole idea of creative destruction, for example, which is popular up to the day, is basically lifted straight from Marx. Of course, the evolutionary economists who consider themselves in Schumpeters legacy, tend to ignore this link too.
          • tareqak 6 years ago
            The creator seems/seemed to be taking suggestions to improve it. I'd encourage people who have improvements to suggest to suggest them, and/or create their own version using their own tools e.g. graphviz.
            • quadrangle 6 years ago
              Where's chartalists / neochartalists / MMT?
              • notahacker 6 years ago
                In terms of where they'd sit, you can pretty much draw a line from Keynes via (to an extent) Joan Robinson and other post Keynesians to MMT

                In terms of why aren't they on there it's because they're really not that influential, (as pointed out elsewhere, the family tree does massively overstate the influence of Austrian Economics and includes some very minor economists associated with that school but that's clearly a reflection of the creator's personal preferences. Cairnes and Nassau Senior are odd choices too). Not many people who weren't hardcore MMTers would think Randy Wray or Bill Mitchell should be on there ahead of the likes of Arrow, Solow, Tobin, Mundell Prescott etc and even within post-Keynesianism there are bigger names in macro.

                • claudiawerner 6 years ago
                  The chart is also extremely lacking on the Marxian front, and also on the Post-Keynesian and Sraffian fronts. It's laughable that the only descendant of Marx's line of thought is a non-Marxist, Joan Robinson. Paul Samuelson is included but there's nothing of the debates with him from the Sraffian and Marxist schools. There's no mention of the Japanese Marxists, either.

                  I don't know if the fact that Marx's line connects to Malthus rather than the whole box for the classical school means anything, but if it should be connected to anyone in that box, it should be connected to Ricardo, not Malthus.

                  It's an admirable attempt, but the chart is lacking in at least one area I can identify, so it could easily be lacking or outright wrong in others.

                • ggm 6 years ago
                  I would love the arc post-Marx to be more complete.

                  For instance, it could have Paul Sweezy and Paul A Baran on it.