the evidence or they don’t. If they have the evidence, then it’s nicely
done.”
Economics: Unified by Mathematical Formalism
Economics is rivaled only by history in its level of disciplinary
consensus. Unlike history, however, where the basis for unity is a
shared sense ofcraftsmanship in research, economists’ cohesion is
grounded in a cognitive unification that was largely achieved by the
1960s, as mathematical economics triumphed over other approaches
(institutionalist, Marxian, and anti-mathematical institutionalist, for
instance).^58 This ascendance of mathematical economics has trans-
lated into a homogenization of the core courses in every major insti-
tution, which has further solidified its position. Of course, there is
substantial diversity across fields. According to Harvard economist
Elhanan Helpman, “The empirical methodology dominating labor
economics is quite different from the empirical methodology domi-
nant in industrial organization. Behavioral economics plays a much
bigger role in finance than in international trade, and the degree of
rigor varies across fields. These types of division are accepted, al-
though with a grudge by some scholars.”^59
Disciplinary agreement is echoed at the international level, where
the use of mathematical formalism has promoted an intellectual
consolidation of the field around economics as practiced in the United
States.^60 It is notable that the high degree of professional consensus
among economists has been accompanied by a robust production of
PhDs. Although there was a slight decline from 1975 to 1985, the
number of PhDs conferred in economics has grown steadily and
consistently over the past twenty years—to over one thousand such
degrees in 2005. Relative to the number of doctorates awarded in all
disciplines, degrees conferred in economics appear to have remained
fairly constant. English, history, and political science, by contrast, all
100 / On Disciplinary Cultures