Mismeasuring Long Run Growth. The Bias from Spliced National Accounts

Leandro Prados de la Escosura
is Professor in Economic History at
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Last April it was made public that Nigeria’s GDP figures for 2013 had been revised upwards by 89 per cent, as the base year for its calculation was brought forward from 1990 to 2010 (Financial Times April 7, 2014). As a result, Nigeria became the largest economy in Sub Saharan Africa. Though spectacular, this is not an exceptional case. Ghana (2010), Argentina’s (1993) or Italy’s (1987) also experienced dramatic upward revisions of their GDP. 

How should this revision affect GDP time series and, consequently, the country’s relative position? Should the existing historical series be re-scaled in the same proportion? 

Official national accounts are usually available from mid-twentieth century onwards, but often only for the latest decades. Furthermore, official national accounts are only constructed in a homogeneous way for short periods. Hence, the output of national accounts needs to be spliced with historical national accounts. Thus, when a homogeneous long-run GDP series is required, various sets of national accounts using different benchmark years and often constructed with dissimilar methodologies need to be spliced. The alternative choice of splicing procedures to derive a single GDP series may result in substantial differences in levels and growth rates and, hence, in significant biases in the assessment of economic performance over time.

National accounts rely on complete information on quantities and prices in order to compute GDP for a single benchmark year, which is, then, extrapolated forward on the basis of limited information for a sample of goods and services. To allow for changes in relative prices and, thus, to avoid that forward projections of the current benchmark become non representative, national accountants periodically replace the current benchmark with a new and closer GDP benchmark. The new benchmark is constructed, in part, with different sources and computation methods. Often far from negligible differences in the new benchmark year between ‘new’ and ‘old’ national accounts stem from statistical (sources and estimation procedures) and conceptual (definitions and classifications) bases. Once a new benchmark has been introduced, newly available statistical evidence would not be taken on board to avoid a discontinuity in the existing series. Thus, the coverage of new economic activities partly explains the discrepancy between the new and old series. As a result, a problem of consistency between the new and old national account series emerges.

Is there a solution to this inconsistency problem? The obvious option would be computing GDP for the years covered by the old benchmark with the same sources and procedures employed in the construction of the new benchmark. However, this option is beyond the resources of an independent researcher. The challenge is, then, establishing the extent to which conceptual and technical innovations in the new benchmark series hint at a measurement error in the old benchmark series. In particular, whether the discrepancy in the overlapping year between the new benchmark (in which GDP is estimated with ‘complete’ information) and the old benchmark series (in which reduced information on quantities and prices is used to project forward the ‘complete’ information estimate from its initial year) results from a measurement error in the old benchmark’s initial year estimate.

A simple solution, widely used by national accountants (and implicitly accepted in international comparisons), is the backward projection, or retropolation, approach, that accepts the reference level provided by the most recent benchmark estimate (YT) and re-scales the earlier benchmark series (Xt) with the ratio between the new and the old series for the year (T) at which the two series overlap (YT/XT).
Underlying this procedure is the implicit assumption of an error level in the old benchmark’s series whose relative size is constant over time. In other words, no error is assumed to exist in the old series’ rates of variation that are, hence, retained in the spliced series YRt . Official national accountants have favoured this procedure of linking national accounts series on the grounds that it preserves the earlier benchmark’s rates of variation.

Usually the most recent benchmark provides a higher GDP level for the overlapping year, as its coverage of economic activities is wider. Thus, the backwards projection of the new benchmark GDP level with the available growth rates -computed at the previous benchmark’s relative prices- implies a systematic upwards revision of GDP levels for earlier years. This one-sided upward revision effect on the levels of spliced GDP series is hardly noticeable when discrepancies between the new and old benchmarks are small for the overlapping year and the considered time span is short. However, as the time horizon expands and earlier series are re-scaled once and again to match newer ones, the gap tends to deepen significantly.

An alternative to the backward projection linkage is provided by the interpolation procedure that accepts the levels computed directly for each benchmark-year as the best possible estimates, on the grounds that they have been obtained with ‘complete’ information on quantities and prices, and distributes the gap or difference between the ‘new ‘and ‘old’ benchmark series in the overlapping year T at a growing rate.
Contrary to the retropolation approach, the interpolation procedure assumes that the error is generated between the years 0 and T. Consequently, it modifies the annual rate of variation between benchmarks (usually upwards) while keeps unaltered the initial level –that of the old benchmark-. As a result, the initial level will be probably lower than the one derived from the retropolation approach.

The choice of linkage procedure makes a significant difference for GDP levels and growth rates. When the levels for earlier years are re-scaled upwards with the retropolation procedure, the country in question becomes retrospectively richer. Alternatively, interpolating each original benchmark tends to raise the economy’s rate of growth and, hence, casts a lower initial GDP level. Which method is preferable? A practical answer may be derived from the analysis of Spain’s experience, a country that went through a process of deep structural change during the second half of the twentieth century.

The figure below presents the GDP levels resulting from splicing national accounts through non-linear interpolation relative to the levels derived through extrapolation. It can be noticed how the over-exaggeration of GDP levels cumulates over time when the extrapolation method is used.

Ratio of spliced interpolated series to retropolated series, 1954-2013 (GDP at current prices). 

Differences between the results of the interpolation and retropolation procedures appear much more dramatic when placed in a long run perspective, that is, when the spliced national accounts are projected backwards into the nineteenth century with volume indices taken from historical accounts series. This is due to the fact that most countries grew at a slower pace before 1950, so its per capita GDP level by mid-twentieth century determines its earlier relative position in country rankings.

Thus, the choice of splicing procedure can result in far from negligible differences in the relative position of a country in terms of per capita income over the long run. As an illustration I present Spain’s relative position to France derived with retropolation and interpolation splicing methods below.

Spain’s Real Per Capita GDP (France = 1). Alternative Splicing Results (2011 EKS $)

According to the retropolation splicing procedure, by mid-nineteenth century, real per capita GDP in Spain would have been similar, if not superior, to that of France. If, alternatively, the relative position that results for Spain from the interpolation splicing procedure represents about 80 percent of the French. When the period 1850-1913 is considered, Spain would match France’s real income per head, according to the retropolated series, and reach only four-fifths if the interpolated series are employed. These proportions hardly alter if the period under comparison is extended to 1935. It can be conclude that whatever the measurement error embodied in the interpolation procedure may be, its results appear far more plausible than those resulting from the conventional retropolation approach.

The bottom line is that splicing national accounts must be handled with extreme care, especially when countries have experienced intense growth and deep structural change, as there is a risk to bias their income levels upwards and, consequently, their growth rates downwards. A systematic revision of national accounts splicing in fast growing countries over the last half a century using the interpolation approach would most probably reduce their initial per capita GDP levels while rise their growth with the result of a more intense and widespread catching up to the Core countries.

This blog post was written by Leandro Prados de la Escosura (Universidad Carlos III and CEPR)

References

de la Fuente Moreno, A. (2014), “A Mixed Splicing Procedure for Economic Time Series”, Estadística Española 56 (183): 107-121.

Maddison, A. (1991b), “A Revised Estimate of Italian Economic Growth 1861-1989”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 177: 225-241.

Prados de la Escosura, L. (2014), Mismeasuring Long Run Growth. The Bias from Spliced National Accounts, EHES Working Paper 60.

The content and pre-requisites for the ideal economic history course

A homage to my teachers in the distant past

James Foreman-Peck is Professor of
Economics at Cardiff University .
He was the president of EHES 1999-2001

The most exciting course I have ever followed was Peter Lindert and Keith Trace’s final year undergraduate ‘Topics in Economic History’ (I am not certain now that this was the title). It still seems to me to have set out an agenda for many of the themes that are most worthwhile in economic history. Motivated by inspirational teaching, we began by getting our teeth into whether there was a fourteenth century Malthusian crisis and romped through time from there, touching on Hicks’ Theory of Economic History.  We savoured the origins of sixteenth century inflation and surged onwards towards the then present day, with the triggers for the West German post war miracle and Japanese super growth in the nineteen sixties. You could not get more contemporary than this last because the course was taught at the end of the sixties! Apart from the Japanese, and the US (surely the Great Depression as seen by Friedman and Schwartz?) case studies, most of the subject matter was European.

How could such a course be developed if there were suitable customers available today? With almost another half century of economic history behind us since this epochal pedagogic event there must be a wide range of candidate case studies. European de-colonisation is perhaps one. The Russian and/or East European transition is certainly ripe for the mature reflections of members of the European Historical Economics Society and therefore for lively undergraduate study.

Globalisation and shifting centres of economic power have changed Europe’s position in the world. Europe in the last half century is much more likely to be an ‘effect’ than a ‘cause’ – as with OPEC and the oil crises of the 1970s or through the competitive effects of the economic rise of post Mao China.  But the origins and consequences of the European common currency will surely provide many insights for the whole world.
A drawback of such a course on the supply side is that it is unlikely to appeal to the specialised academic country expert. It is much more suitable for an ‘ ideas’ teacher, who in adjacent disciplines with the appropriate technique perhaps might be sought among economists. But would they be found? At the time I was being delighted by the Trace and Lindert course I suspected most of these economics practitioners of being analogous to the glass bead game players of Thomas Mann’s eponymous novel. Either that or they were simply fascinated with ‘intellectual rigour’, which smelled of Freud’s Theory of Money. From these economists’ point of view to teach such a course they would need to find out about history, but this was professionally unnecessary because they could deduce it (and the present) from first principles.

If this is still the case (assuming it was ever) then there may be a gap on the supply side for such a course, always supposing that there is a demand. For the economic history entrepreneur the task is to create such a demand, as well.

Blog post written by: James Foreman-Peck, Professor of Economics at Cardiff University where he does not teach economic history.

Stating the obvious? Co-authorship and scientific contribution

One particularly controversial issue in recent case of  the Abilitazioni Scientifiche Nazionali in economic history in Italy has been the decision of not considering co-authored publications that did not include an explicit statement in which it was indicated the individual contribution of each author to the different sections of the paper. 

Below, we publish  two letters of editors of the leading journals in the field of Economic History and in the field of History of Economic Though that provide an important clarification concerning the editorial policies of these journals concerning co-authored papers. 

Stating the obvious? Apparently, sometimes it is necessary.

Durham, April 7th, 2014

Professor Paola Pierucci

Presidente di Commissione

Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale – settore 13/C1

pieruccip@yahoo.it

cc: dottor Simona Corvaja

Responsabile del procedimento

Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale – settore 13/C1

scorvaja@unime.it

cc: dottor Gianluca Cerracchio

MIUR – Direzione Generale Ufficio I

MIUR-DGUS@miur.it

cc: Ministero per l’Istruzione, l’Università e la Ricerca – MIUR

Direzione Generale per l’Università

direzione.universita@miur.it

Re: National Scientific Qualification (ASN – Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale) – Economic History/History of Economic Thought/Economic Methodology

Dear professor Pierucci, Dear dottor Corvaja and dottor Cerracchio,

We have been informed by our Italian colleagues that the ASN Commission is developing criteria that will govern academic promotion in Italy. As we understand it, the ASN rules (DM 76/2012, art.4, sec. 2, letter B) state that the Commission must check for “the individual contribution in the case of co-authored works.” We, the undersigned editors of the principal international journals in the history of economic thought and economic methodology, believe that we can contribute important information to the ASN committee for the history of economic thought and economic methodology regarding the nature of the international practices for our specific discipline. In conjunction with our editorial boards and the community of scholars who aid in reviewing scientific articles, we largely determine which papers are published in the peer-reviewed journals in our field. 

Co-authorship of articles in the wider economics discipline is increasingly more common, so that, in many subfields of economics, it is the rule, not the exception. Co-authored articles do not yet dominate the history of economic thought and economic methodology, although they are very frequently encountered. The nature of scholarly collaboration in our field does not typically admit of any neat division of the total credit for a scholarly article into the individual contributions of its co-authors. As a result, we do not encourage – much less require – authors to report their individual contributions in the published versions of their articles. 

Our presumption is that the co-authors are each equally responsible for the final product, except in those rare cases in which the co-authors volunteer to apportion the credit in some other way. We also adhere to the common practice in several fields – though we know some other fields may follow a different one – in which co-authors are listed alphabetically, with no implication that the order of listing conveys any information about the importance of an individual co-author’s contribution. Exceptions to this rule are rare and, again, at the discretion of the co-authors themselves. The increasing prevalence of scholarly collaboration and co-authorship represents a vital element in scientific progress in many fields. We hope that the ASN committee for the history of economics/history of economic thought/economic methodology will not adopt rules that in any way discourage such collaboration by penalizing co-authors who fail to apportion their individual scholarly contributions within published articles. It would be particularly invidious to discount those articles completely in assessing the fitness of scholars for promotion. Much of the best work is co-authored; apportionment of scholarly effort into distinct shares is often impossible; and none of the major journals in our field require, nor even encourage nor welcome, such apportionment.

Yours sincerely,

John B. Davis (Marquette University and University of Amsterdam; Co-editor Journal of Economic Methodology)

Riccardo Faucci (University of Pisa; Co-editor, HEI – History of Economic Ideas)

Luca Fiorito (University of Palermo; Co-editor, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology)

Nicola Giocoli (University of Pisa; Co-editor, HEI – History of Economic Ideas)

D. Wade Hands (University of Puget Sound; Co-editor Journal of Economic Methodology)

Kevin D. Hoover (Duke University; Editor, History of Political Economy)

Roberto Marchionatti (University of Turin; Co-editor, HEI – History of Economic Ideas)

Stephen Meardon (Bowdoin College; Editor, Journal of the History of Economic Thought)

Richard Sturn (Institute of Public Economics and Schumpeter Centre, Graz University; Managing Editor, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought)

April 14th, 2014

Professor Paola Pierucci

Presidente di Commissione

Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale – settore 13/C1

pieruccip@yahoo.it

cc: dottor Simona Corvaja

Responsabile del procedimento

Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale – settore 13/C1

scorvaja@unime.it

cc: dottor Gianluca Cerracchio

MIUR – Direzione Generale Ufficio I MIUR-DGUS@miur.it

cc: Ministero per l’Istruzione, l’Università e la Ricerca – MIUR Direzione Generale per l’Università

direzione.universita@miur.it

Re: National Scientific Qualification (ASN – Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale) – Economic History

Dear Professor Pierucci, dottor Corvaja and dottor Cerracchio,

We understand that the recent rules on the Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale state that in co-authored works the Selection Commission must check for “the individual contribution in the case of co-authored works.”

Following the letter of the editors of the history of economic thought and economic methodology journals JEM, HEI, HOPE, JHET, EJHET we would like to state that, in the field of economic history, the international journals we edit operate a similar editorial policy to that expressed in their letter. 

In our journals the majority of articles are co-authored. We rarely publish statements that delineate the specific contribution of each author to the different sections of the paper. The norm is for authors simply to be listed alphabetically, unless there is some desire by the authors to assign more credit to one of their number. Alphabetical listing implies that the authors all made contributions of equivalent value.

We operate with such a convention because, unlike in some fields of physical science, papers in economic history still typically have small numbers of co-authors, and it is the norm to only list as authors people who have contributed substantially, and in broadly equal measure, to the writing of the paper, the research design, and the data collection.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Broadberry, LSE, London. Co-Editor, Economic History Review.

Gregory Clark, University of California, Davis. Co-Editor, European Review of Economic History.

William Collins, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Co-Editor, Explorations in Economic History. 

Claude Diebolt, Université de Strasbourg. Editor, Cliometrica. 

Şevket Pamuk, Bogaziçi University, Istanbul. Co-Editor, European Review of Economic History.

Paul Rhode, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Co-Editor, Journal of Economic History.

Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, Caltech, Pasadena. Co-Editor, Journal of Economic History.

Hans-Joachim Voth, University of Zurich. Co-Editor, Explorations in Economic History.

Nikolaus Wolf, Humboldt University, Berlin. Co-Editor, European Review of Economic History.

About Italian Economic history: A reply

A reply from the Boards of the Italian Associations of Economic History (SISE) and the History of Economic Thought (AISPE)

To: Profs. Robert C. Allen, Stephen Broadberry, Gregory Clark, Nicholas Crafts, Jane Humphries, Deirdre McCloskey, Joel Mokyr, Douglass North, Kevin O’Rourke, Leandro Prados de la Escosura, Jan Luiten Van Zanden, and Jeffrey G. Williamson

April 7, 2014
Re: Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale 2012, Storia Economica (13 C/1)

Dear Colleagues,
As members of the Boards of the Italian Associations of Economic History (SISE) and the History of Economic Thought (AISPE), it was with surprise and dismay that we read the letter you sent to the Prime Minister and other Italian authorities regarding the results of the qualifying examination for the certification of professor of Economic History. 
It is not for us to dispute the choices made by the Commission responsible for the certification procedure, the minutes of which are available online for consultation and which we assume you read carefully prior to sending the letter. Your observations presume that the evaluation criteria adopted were arbitrary and inadequate. However, it must be remembered that Italian university professors are employed by the State and that the selection procedure is regulated by specific Government regulations which, while they may seem anachronistic, must be adhered to. 
Moreover, as representatives of Italian academics of Economic History and the History of Economic Thought, whose reputation has been compromised by your intervention, we feel it is our duty to clarify some points. The summary judgement which you pronounced is based exclusively on the criteria of international visibility as an indicator of the quality of an academic. While this is certainly an important factor, it is not the only one to be taken into consideration when evaluating a researcher. 
Economic Historians in Italy have widely discussed the scientific statute of the discipline and the methods for evaluating research and agree on the fact that only the careful, critical reading of a book, paper or article can allow us to express a valid judgement, in other words “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. It is well-known that the widespread use of bibliometric criteria is a more immediate application tool, but it is also true that these methodologies are subject to severe criticism. The fact that most of our scientific production is in Italian obviously makes an international comparison difficult, but this does not give the right to make superficial judgements on a historiographic tradition such as the Italian one which has contributed to the general progress of Economic History and the History of Economic Thought not only with publications in Italian but also in French, Spanish, German and English.

We are in no doubt that your letter was based on a misunderstanding and that collaboration and mutual respect between Economic Historians in Italy and colleagues in other countries will continue to be fruitful.

Yours sincerely,

Franco M. Amatori, Università Bocconi – Milano
Francesco Asso, Università di Palermo
Massimo Augello, Presidente Associazione Italiana Storici del Pensiero Economico e Rettore
dell’Università di Pisa
Carlo Marco Belfanti, Università di Brescia
Giuseppe Di Taranto, Università LUISS – Roma
Antonio Di Vittorio, Presidente della Società Italiana degli Storici Economici e Professore Emerito
Università di Bari
Paolo Frascani, Università di Napoli L’Orientale
Andrea Leonardi, Università di Trento
Luca Michelini, Università di Pisa
Giampiero Nigro, Università di Firenze
Giovanni Pavanelli, Università di Torino
Rosario Patalano, Università di Napoli Federico II
Mario Taccolini, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – Brescia
Carlo M. Travaglini, Università di Roma Tre
Gianfranco Tusset, Università di Padova

Economic history in Italy: A letter to the Minister of University and Scientific Research

Re: Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale 2012, Storia Economica (13 C/1)

Dear Prime Minister, dear Minister,

We would like to express our concern about the results of the National Scientific Qualification (Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale) in Economic History (13 C/1). In particular, we are puzzled by the failure of a number of applicants with an outstanding track record to obtain the “qualification” (abilitazione) for Full Professor (professore prima fascia) or for Associate Professor (professore seconda fascia). These individuals are well known outside Italy for their publications, their conference and seminar presentations, their refereeing of papers for leading journals, and their collaboration in international research projects. For example, we refer to three extremely valuable colleagues, Mark Dincecco (University of Michigan), Alessandro Nuvolari (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies) and Giovanni Vecchi (University  of Rome “Tor Vergata”), none of whom was awarded the qualification to Full Professor. It would be a terrible shame if these outcomes inhibited the full development of these scholars’ research agendas; economic history would be the poorer for it.

Another troubling feature of these results is the fact that candidates with a very limited track record of research in terms of international publications have been awarded the qualification. This is not the direction in which Italian economic history should go if it wants to secure its rightful place at the research frontier in our field.

Yours sincerely,

  

Robert C. Allen (New York University Abu Dhabi)

Stephen Broadberry (London School of Economics)

Gregory Clark (University of California, Davis)

Nicholas F. R. Crafts (University of Warwick)

Jane Humphries (All Souls College, University of Oxford)

Deirdre McCloskey (University of Gothenburg and University of Illinois at Chicago)

Joel Mokyr (Northwestern University)

Douglass C. North (Washington University in St. Louis; Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 1993)

Kevin O’Rourke (All Souls College, University of Oxford)

Leandro Prados de la Escosura (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)

Jan Luiten Van Zanden (University of Utrecht)

Jeffrey G. Williamson (Harvard University and University of Wisconsin)

Comment by Giovanni Federico, President of the European Historical Economics Society

Giovanni Federico is Professor in Economic
History at University of Pisa, and President of
the European Historical Economics Society.

This letter by twelve distinguished economic historians does not need much comment. However, some additional information might be helpful for readers not used to the byzantine procedures of the Italian university.  According to a 2010 law, professors are recruited in two distinct stages. In the first stage (Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale), a national committee decides, on the basis of her publication record, whether a candidate is qualified (abilitato) to hold associate or full professor position in a given subject.  The qualification does not guarantee a position, but it is necessary to apply for actual jobs, which the universities will advertise in the next four years. Afterwards, the qualification would expire. There are 186 committees for as many fields (settori concorsuali), including Economic History, which must assess also candidates for History of Economic Thought. The deadline for application was  November 20, 2012  and 145 and 81  scholars applied respectively for associate and (full) professor (some of them applied for both positions). 

The CVs of  the candidates and the assessments of the committee (individual and collective) are available at https://abilitazione.cineca.it/ministero.php/public/esito/settore/13%252FC1/fascia/1  

and

https://abilitazione.cineca.it/ministero.php/public/esito/settore/13%252FC1/fascia/2

This transparency is highly praiseworthy, a welcome change from the bad habits of the past. 

The assessments show that the committee has denied the qualification to Nuvolari, Dincecco and Vecchi, at least officially, on a technicality. Its members have stated not to be able to distinguish the personal contribution of these three authors to the co-authored papers. This mention of the personal contribution to a joint paper may seem strange in the 21^st century. Indeed, it follows an old tradition of the Italian concorsi (competitions) for university positions, which prescribed that the contribution of each author must be recognizable. In fact, authors still use to add in Italian books and articles odd-looking footnotes such as 'although the work is the outcome of a joint work, author X has written Section 1,3,5 while author Y has written section 2 and 4'. Needless to say, such statements would be absolutely unthinkable in an international journal. Indeed, other committees in Economics have had no qualm to assess joint works, paying lip service to the tradition with formulas such as 'we ascertain as much as possible the individual contribution of the candidate to joint works’ or ‘we are able to assess the individual contribution of the candidate’. The committee for Economic History (with one dissenting voice) has decided otherwise and has labelled ‘non valutabili’ (impossible to assess) all the joint work without an explicit statement of the contribution. Thus it assessed only 4 out of the 18 publications submitted by Nuvolari and found them insufficient for qualifying him.

 A quick look at the candidates’ CVs can buttress the second claim of the letter – that the committee has qualified some candidates with a “very limited” number of international publications. One can define these latter as articles in the list of A-rated journals suggested by the  ANVUR, the official agency overseeing the Abilitazione, at an earlier stage of the procedure. The list (available at http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/254/Area13_classeA.pdf) is not very selective. It includes nine Economic History journals (Journal of Economic History, Explorations in Economic History, Economic History Review, European Review of Economic History, Cliometrica, Australian Economic History Review, Financial History Review, Journal of Latin America and Iberian Economic History and Technology and Culture), three business history  journals (Business History, Business History Review and Enterprise and Society), four journal of history of economic thought (European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Journal of Economic methodology and History of Political Economy).

 Yet, as of November 2012, only thirty candidates to full professor out of 81 had published at least one paper in any of these journals or in any of the long list of economics journals. Only ten candidates, including the three above mentioned, have published four paper or more. The results do not change much if we use a less demanding standard, the number of publications (books, chapter of books and articles) in the Econlit database. Thirty candidates have not a single title in the data-base - i.e. have no ‘international publications’ at all. Eighteen of them have been qualified. In contrast, 5 out of the top 10 candidates in terms of Econlit publications (ranging from 18 to 35) have not qualified. As a result, the average number of publications in Econlit is slightly higher for not qualified (5.80) than for qualified (5.65).  Both criteria would yield worse results if we concentrate on economic historians only. In fact, several specialists in the history of economic thought who applied are professional economists with a substantial publication record.

Of course, the international impact is not the only yardstick for good work. Econlit might omit  relevant work by Italian authors because it covers only very sketchily the Italian journals and publishing houses. However, if this is the case, it is arguably even worse. Any author who forfeits the opportunity of letting his work known outside the native borders not only damages his own standing but makes the international discourse poorer.

Giovanni Federico.

The letter has been reported on 26 March in Corriere della Sera, one of the most important newspaper in Italy.

Read it (in Italian) here.