Finance scholarship rose from business-school marginality to Nobel-level prominence by the 1990s

Evidence

Nevertheless, in the 1960s and the 1970s the new financial economics gradually became a recognized, reasonably high-status, enduring part of the academic landscape, one that could, and did, successfully reproduce itself and grow Economists might continue to harbor doubts about the value of the research being done, but business schools, not economics departments, were the main institutional base of the new specialty. Within those schools, the mathematical modeling and computerized statistical testing that the “new finance men” employed were unquestionably state-of-the-art. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 320 (#expands, via linked claim)

In response to the perception that they were not rigorous enough, American business schools sought to “academicize” themselves, a goal whose achievement was assisted by the availability of funds for the task from the Ford Foundation and by the general expansion in higher education. Academicization proceeded rapidly in the 1960s and the 1970s. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 322 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 320; Ford Foundation funding drove business schools’ academicization in the 1960s — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 322; Martingale theory’s prestige drew pure mathematicians into finance by 1990 — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 623 (+3 more)

Related

• Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments (similarity 0.93)
• Financial economics grew up in business schools, not economics departments (similarity 0.91)
• Ford Foundation funding drove business schools’ academicization in the 1960s (similarity 0.89)
• Academicization opened finance jobs beyond the Chicago and MIT schools (similarity 0.88)
• Financial economics emerged as a mathematical discipline only from the 1960s (similarity 0.88)
• Financial economics, not finance, introduced mathematical theory in the 1960s (similarity 0.87)
• Finance was institutionally relegated to business schools and dismissed by academic economists as unscientific (similarity 0.87)
• The new finance theory displaced managerial finance from business school curricula (similarity 0.86)
• Finance was long deemed unworthy of serious academic mathematics. (similarity 0.85)
• Finance theory’s rise depended on markets regaining prestige after 1929. (similarity 0.85)
• Finance progressed where it studied markets rather than firms’ internal workings (similarity 0.84)
• Mathematical economics displaced descriptive institutional study of finance in the US (similarity 0.83)
• Mainstream economists once dismissed finance theory as marginal and trivial (similarity 0.83)
• Finance’s market focus resulted from mathematical tractability and microeconomic training (similarity 0.83)
• American business schools were academically weak until the late 1950s (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments #expands (0.90) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 320
• Ford Foundation funding drove business schools’ academicization in the 1960s #expands (0.75) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 322