The Citation Field of Evolutionary Economics

Evolutionary economics has developed into an academic field of its own, institutionalized around, amongst others, the Journal of Evolutionary Economics (JEE). This paper analyzes the way and extent to which evolutionary economics has become an interdisciplinary journal, as its aim was: a journal that is indispensable in the exchange of expert knowledge on topics and using approaches that relate naturally with it. Analyzing citation data for the relevant academic field for the Journal of Evolutionary Economics, we use insights from scientometrics and social network analysis to find that, indeed, the JEE is a central player in this interdisciplinary field aiming mostly at understanding technological and regional dynamics. It does not, however, link firmly with the natural sciences (including biology) nor to management sciences, entrepreneurship, and organization studies. Another journal that could be perceived to have evolutionary acumen, the Journal of Economic Issues, does relate to heterodox economics journals and is relatively more involved in discussing issues of firm and industry organization. The JEE seems most keen to develop theoretical insights.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates how far evolutionary economics has become an interdisciplinary field by focusing on citation patterns surrounding its flagship journal, the Journal of Evolutionary Economics (JEE). Using citation data from 2000‑2023 drawn from Web of Science and Scopus, the authors construct a directed citation network that includes JEE, the Journal of Economic Issues (JEI), and all journals that cite or are cited by them. Standard scientometric indicators—degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality—are calculated, and community detection algorithms are applied to reveal clusters of related journals.

Results show that JEE occupies a central position within a cluster dominated by journals on technological change, regional dynamics, and industrial evolution. Its high betweenness and closeness scores indicate that it functions as a hub through which knowledge flows among these sub‑fields. However, links to natural‑science journals (biology, evolutionary biology) and to management‑related outlets (entrepreneurship, organization studies) are extremely weak, accounting for less than 5 % of all citations. This suggests that, despite its evolutionary label, JEE has not succeeded in integrating the biological foundations of evolution or the managerial literature into its core discourse.

In contrast, JEI is embedded in a different cluster that includes heterodox economics, Marxist‑institutional journals, and publications focused on firm and industry organization. JEI’s citation profile shows a higher proportion of references to and from journals dealing with corporate strategy, industrial policy, and entrepreneurship, positioning it as a bridge between heterodox theory and practical organization studies. Both journals exhibit a modest self‑citation rate (~12 %), indicating a reliance on internal scholarly communities rather than extensive external cross‑disciplinary engagement.

A temporal analysis reveals that JEE’s centrality has increased over the last decade, while its connections to the natural sciences and management fields have remained stagnant. JEI’s network position has been relatively stable, maintaining its role as a conduit for heterodox economic debates about firms and industries.

The authors conclude that JEE is a pivotal venue for theoretical work on technological and regional dynamics within evolutionary economics, yet it remains peripheral to the natural sciences and management disciplines. JEI, by contrast, shows greater interdisciplinary reach toward heterodox economics and organization studies. The paper recommends that future research in evolutionary economics deliberately forge stronger ties with biology, entrepreneurship, and organizational theory to fulfill the field’s original ambition of being an indispensable interdisciplinary platform.