Unfairly Neglected Papers

17 February 2010 at 3:55 pm Lasse 7 comments

| Lasse Lien |

I guess we’ve all read papers thinking: Why isn’t this paper routinely cited and part of the canon of …………. (insert whatever). Here is an example of such a paper — IMHO. Be warned that the abstract isn’t close to doing justice to the paper itself. I would love to see examples of the papers O&M readers think are most unfairly neglected. Of course we all feel that our own papers top this list, but ignoring those, which are they?

Entry filed under: - Lien -, Papers.

Product and Factor Markets in the RBV Call for Papers: 4th Int. Workshop on Org. Design

7 Comments Add your own

1. Aaron K | 17 February 2010 at 5:05 pm

Maybe you answered your own question:

“the abstract isn’t close to doing justice to the paper itself.”
2. Rafe Champion | 18 February 2010 at 4:24 am

Tyler Cowen on the Marshall Plan.

Click to access Marshall_Plan.pdf

summary http://www.the-rathouse.com/2009/Marshall-Plan.html

Barry Smith on the philosophical/metaphysical framework of Austrian economics.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/menger.html
This paper and his chapter on Menger in his book on Austrian philosophy practically bury the strong program of apriorism in favour of “fallible apriorism” which is consistent with Popper’s views on epistemology and the methods of the natural sciences.

Click to access CH10.pdf

Boettke on where economics went wrong.

Click to access 1997%20where%20did%20economics%20go%20wrong,%20critical%20review.pdf
3. Lasse | 18 February 2010 at 8:35 am

Thanks Rafe. That should keep me busy for the rest of the evening :-)

Aaron: good point (although that wasn’t my question).
4. Peter Klein | 18 February 2010 at 9:48 am

Earlier ruminations on this theme:

https://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/07/11/brilliant-but-neglected-articles/

https://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/07/25/brilliant-but-neglected-ii/

But, Lasse, under the category “unfairly neglected,” couldn’t we just have an auto-redirect to our own home pages? (No academic insults please.)
5. Lasse | 18 February 2010 at 12:51 pm

Ooops. Blatant example of shallow literature review.
6. Rafe Champion | 20 February 2010 at 4:52 am

Lasse, here is a summary of the two Barry Smith papers.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/Smith-on-Aristotle-Menger.html

You don’t need a summary of Pete Boettke’s paper, it is only 50 pages:)
7. Lasse | 21 February 2010 at 3:27 pm

Rafe, now that’s what I call good community spirit. Thanks.