Talk:List of important publications in economics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health economics[edit]

The text bellow was the entry of health economics. Though it is very detailed, probably not all the publications in it fit in the list. One should note that other entries have publications by Smith, Marx and that league. In order to allow future use of this reference, I moved it to the talk page. It seems that this few publications should be selected from this reference for the health economics entry in the list itself. APH 10:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory texts[edit]

Culyer, A.J. (2005) The Dictionary of Health Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Description: A book that reveals in plain English the concepts and methods used by health economists. Very accessible to non-specialists and students.


McPake, B., Kumaranayake, L. and Normand, C. (2002) Health Economics – An International Perspective, Routledge: London.

Description: A UK text which provides an introduction to health economics in less technical detail.


Rice, T. (1998) The Economics of Health Reconsidered, Health Administrative Press: Chicago.

Description: An alternative text which takes market failure in health care as a starting point.


Phua, K.L. (2005) Health Economics: An Introduction for Biomedical and Other Health-Related Professionals.

Description: A book designed to introduce the subject to health professionals and other interested readers with little or no background in economics.


New book, March 2015: Chester, David Harold: Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationizing About How Our Social System Works Description This is listed here not because it is new but because it is different in the basic approach. It is original, and it avoids all of the inexact wordy descriptions of the past. Here you will find the raw conversion to science of this past pseudo-scientific subject. Macrocompassion (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate texts[edit]

Folland S., Goodman AC. and Stano M. (2001) The Economics of Health and Health Care (4th edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Description: The standard health economics textbook in most leading universities. It assumes some background knowledge in economics.


Jacobs, P. (1997) The Economics of Health and Health Care, Aspen Books: Maryland.

Description: Probably the most direct competitor of the above text. About the same level.


Advanced texts[edit]

Culyer AJ. and Newhouse JP. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Health Economics, Volumes 1A and 1B. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Description: The most comprehensive available collection of essays on contemporary health economics. Advanced readers will appreciate its mathematical rigor. Those who are seeking research or dissertation topics should find this two-volume set to be an invaluable resource.


Journals also constitute a first-class resource for cutting-edge research. The Journal of Health Economics and Health Economics have emerged as the leading technical specialty journals. There are also many other specialised journals to address readers' particular need. European readers in particular will appreciate the European Journal of Health Economics.

Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles[edit]

List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD[edit]

The criteria for entries[edit]

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of important publications[edit]

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing order?[edit]

I suggest we list these in chronological order, earliest first. Also, I'm not sure what the stuff above is about. OptimistBen (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question for people who watch this page[edit]

What, currently, is the most popular and/or authoritative textbook in economics, or microeconomics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Economics[edit]

This article should add a section specifically for Classical Economics (which I suppose would be merged or a subsection of "Political Economy"). There are many publications from classical economists/philosophers, such as Say, Malthus, Mill, etc. who have had a profound affect on the study of economics, whether they were right or wrong. 24630 (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I suggest we call it Classical Political Economy, as that term has been used by Robert Heilbroner to describe the period of thought and their chief proponents (Smith, Ricardo, Marx, et al). Further, "The Wealth of Nations" and Das Kapital" should be moved to Classical Political Economy (or Classical Economics if we prefer), under Political Economy. As they stand, those works do not belong under the heading of macroeconomics. Macroeconomics didn't emerge until Keynes published his "General Theory." Greenm1981 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An unbalanced unfair page[edit]

Seems to me a page about important publications in economics that doesn't mention Friedman, Von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard is a bit biased... But that's just my two cents CS /10/03/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.15.61 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a potpourri[edit]

In the history of economics, the three most important books (because they were used as the fundamental texts by consecutive generations) were:

  1. Wealth of nations, by Adam Smith
  2. Principles of Political Economy, by John Stuart Mill
  3. Principles of Economics, by Alfred Marshall

To this, two other books that should be added are:

  1. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, by David Ricardo
  2. Foundations of Economic Analysis, by Paul Samuelson

Ricardo set the deductive, abstract tone that both JS Mill and Marshall incorporated, and Samuelson presented the comparative statics approach that characterizes the way economics is presented at the graduate level, even today. Surprisingly, neither JS Mill nor Marshall are mentioned. They should be. Any arguments about this?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Left[edit]

Article needs to add the other side. Hayek and Friedman to Start

I would do it but I don't really know how to.

D6stringer (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poor article[edit]

No citations supporting importance of texts. No citations for the summaries given, either. Perhaps this article should be deleted? --superioridad (discusión) 03:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I recently moved this page to Bibliography of economics.

What reasons not to do this are there?Curb Chain (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For exactly the same reasons put forward by other discussants in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies. This article is not a bibliography. The "List of important publications..." format is well-established. There was no prior discussion on this talk page. If a separate article "Bibliography of economics" is required then it would be very different from this one as the items presently included have been carefully considered and justified. Don't hijack existing articles for other purposes. If a small clique of people want to introduce a new policy on Wikipedia they should go about it rather more carefully than this. Melcombe (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't identify Curb Chain's actions with WikiProject Bibliographies. He is a loose cannon who in no way represents the views of the rest of us. I hope his actions will not prejudice editors against the WikiProject, the members of which are not a clique and do not wish to impose our policies on anyone. However, the project is potentially a good response to all these recent AfDs. Unlike "List of important X", "Bibliography" is a recognized form of list. Contrary to a popular impression, bibliographies do not have to be indiscriminate, or even very different from what you have now. In fact, WikiProject Science pearls, which crafted the template for your current inclusion criteria, is now a task force in WikiProject Bibliographies.
Also have a look at Bibliography of biology for how this page might look. Of course, there is no need to rename the list before making any changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed inclusion criteria[edit]

A perennial issue on this and similar pages is how to set criteria for the list. I have carefully considered existing guidelines and tried to craft a broad set of policies that satisfy them. I have posted it on the Science pearls talk page. I would welcome your comments. Of course, these guidelines are not intended to be binding for any particular page, but might help you choose your own selection criteria. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Additions[edit]

I propose we add Cournot and Jevons. If I get agreement, I can do the work of adding them.JoelDick (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks Neutral Point of View - and perhaps impossible in principle?[edit]

Tagging the article POV today because of several previous notes in the talk section arguing bias and noting omitted authors (e.g. Hayek), the tendency towards books instead of journal articles, my noticing that the Behavioral and Experimental Economics sections read like one sentence book advertisements, and the omission of Charles Plott and Vernon Smith's work in the Experimental Economics section. Smith won a Nobel-memorial prize in 2002 for being a pioneer of human-subject laboratory experimentation in market economics and in particular demonstrating the success of the competitive equilibrium model, aka The Law of Supply and Demand, which assumes individual rationality in explaining market price patterns and efficiency of market allocation. The 2002 Nobel memorial prize was shared with Kahneman, whose lab work had a different topic -- individuals' departures from rational behavior in Behavioral Economics -- so why mention Kahneman in the list but not Smith?. Charles Plott, who also has numerous publications involving laboratory experiments in economics, together with Vernon Smith co-edited a large volume, The Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, that took about a decade to produce and drew in dozens of contributed chapters from other practitioners across almost every specialty (not simply markets, or game theory, or individual choice but all of these, and more) in which the evolving laboratory methodologies in Economics had been applied. Not mentioned.

Now some people might say "it is great that you discovered our page, we can't maintain it all, so just edit your changes in!". But there's a problem.

Artificial scarcity and unappointed trusts are created by lists such as these. While often useful as a marketing hustle, the premise that only a few entries can be "important" in each category creates the artificial scarcity. The ordering of entries can also create an impression that some specialties are more important or central than others. In truth, many articles shaped these fields. The "unappointed trust" is the idea that we, the editors of the list, become "trustees" who sit in judgement of an entire field and can somehow come to a consensus on important works in an entire field, when we are mostly unqualified to do so and the field is still alive and evolving, so can not be captured by a few interested reviewers or the occasional passing volunteer (an argument I have to credit in part to F. Hayek, 1945, The Use of Knowledge in Society). The difference between this and factual wikipedia topics is that we are expressing an opinion (which publications are most important; and as a corollary, which careers of living researchers are the most important) rather than a matter of facts or definitions on which there is substantial agreement (what is the Slutsky equation?).

I think one of the ideas behind wikipedia is that one person should not do "too much", so my contribution will be limited to this notice here and I will leave future discussion to other editors and enthusiasts.

204.93.123.146 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of important publications in economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation[edit]

Should it also be included as an important publication? It made an impact in political economy.

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_important_publications_in_economics&oldid=1208248095"