Scholarly Comments on Academic Economics

Should We Quantify Karl Marx?

by

Read this article

Access statistics
2,250 article downloads
1,238 complete issue downloads
Total: 3,488

Abstract

A 2023 article by Phillip Magness and Michael Makovi in the Journal of Political Economy contends that Karl Marx had little intellectual influence before the Russian Revolution. Yet the back issues of that same journal show that Marx was well-known in the decade before 1917, and that impression is confirmed by name searches of the JSTOR database. Furthermore, Magness and Makovi have misapplied the synthetic control method because no combination of other authors from the Google Ngram Viewer can be a meaningful proxy for Marx. A growing share of N-grams is, in any case, more an indication of Marx’s fame than his intellectual influence. Ultimately, quantitative methods are of limited use and the more traditional tools of intellectual history should be used to determine both what Marx’s ideas actually were and how their influence has evolved over time.

Response to this article by Phillip W. Magness and Michael Makovi: In Defense of Synthetic Karl Marx: A Reply to Joseph Francis (EJW, September 2024).

Data and code used in this research is available here.

in

Download this article

Volume (Issue)
Pages
357–384
Published
JEL classification
B14, B24, B31, B51, Z10
Keywords
Karl Marx, Russian Revolution, synthetic control method, quantitative methods, intellectual history
Downloads
2,250 article downloads
1,238 complete issue downloads
Total: 3,488

Discuss this article!