IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mes/jeciss/v56y2022i3p883-903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divided We Stand? On the Political Engagement of U.S. Economists

Author

Listed:
  • Karl M. Beyer
  • Stephan Pühringer

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on the role of normative values and political preferences among (publicly visible) economists in the United States. For this purpose, we conduct a social network analysis on the signatories of economist petitions, which we identify as one channel for economists to exert public influence. Our contribution is twofold: On the one hand, we provide an extended empirical basis for the debate on consensus in economics and the role of political preferences and normative values in economics. On the other hand, this article offers a viable tool to trace the normative charging of (prospective) economist petitions and economists based on the social structure of petition networks. The main empirical finding of our article is that there is a very strong partisan divide among petition-signing economists in the United States, which mirrors the cleavage within the U.S. political system. We also find that the bipartite partisan structure of the economist petition network increases with the political involvement of economists. This divide is particularly stark in the field of fiscal policy. A greater tendency towards consensus, in turn, can be found with respect to monetary policy, carbon pricing, immigration, free trade or market-based decision tools in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl M. Beyer & Stephan Pühringer, 2022. "Divided We Stand? On the Political Engagement of U.S. Economists," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 883-903, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:mes:jeciss:v:56:y:2022:i:3:p:883-903
    DOI: 10.1080/00213624.2022.2093581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00213624.2022.2093581
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00213624.2022.2093581?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:jeciss:v:56:y:2022:i:3:p:883-903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/MJEI20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.