Researchers have mapped nearly two centuries of where top scientific and scholarly prizewinners have been based—and the results suggest that one discipline is moving in the opposite direction from almost everyone else.
In a large-scale analysis of academic affiliations for close to 6,000 award-winning researchers across 18 prominent fields spanning the natural sciences, engineering, and the social sciences, the authors track changes from the 1820s through the 2020s, with particular attention to trends since the 1960s. Over that modern period, most disciplines show a clear pattern: prizewinning work has become less tied to a small set of dominant universities and more distributed across a wider range of institutions and countries.
Historically, major awards tended to cluster around a handful of research-intensive universities located in high-income nations—places with deep resources, strong graduate programs, and concentrated scientific talent. But from the second half of the 20th century onward, the data indicate that this dominance has weakened in most fields. Award recipients increasingly come from a broader global set of universities, signaling a decline in institutional concentration and a shift toward a more diverse geography of recognized excellence.
Economics stands out as the exception. While concentration has fallen in every other field examined, the institutional affiliations of economics prizewinners have moved in the opposite direction: they have become more concentrated over time. In the authors’ comparison across the 18 disciplines, economics emerges as the most institutionally concentrated field—meaning that, increasingly, the economists who receive major recognition are drawn from a smaller set of universities than in earlier decades.
The study links this divergence to several characteristics of the discipline. One factor is economics’ especially strong sorting by institutional prestige. Compared with many other fields, career trajectories in economics appear more tightly connected to elite departments and their reputational hierarchies, which can influence hiring, publication networks, and the visibility of research.
Another explanation involves the tools of the trade. Unlike fields that depend heavily on specialized instruments, expensive laboratories, or unique experimental facilities, many forms of economics research can be conducted without major physical infrastructure. That portability can, paradoxically, amplify the role of prestige: if top work does not require distinctive equipment, institutional reputation and professional networks may play a larger role in determining who gets access to top journals, influential collaborators, and platforms where ideas gain traction.
A third feature concerns how claims are evaluated. In areas where decisive experiments or formal proofs can settle questions more cleanly, recognition may be less dependent on where a researcher sits institutionally. Economics, the authors argue, more often judges contributions through the accumulation and integration of varied evidence rather than through single, definitive demonstrations—an environment in which reputational signals and institutional standing can matter more.
The analysis also raises the question of tradeoffs. A highly concentrated system may help coordinate standards, training, and intellectual agendas, but it can also narrow the range of perspectives that receive attention and elevate barriers for scholars outside a small set of elite institutions.
Why it matters
Awards shape careers, departmental influence, and what kinds of research get funded and taught. If economics is increasingly centered in a small number of institutions while other fields diversify, the discipline may face growing concerns about gatekeeping and missed ideas from outside elite networks. Watch for whether hiring, publishing, and prize committees respond—either reinforcing the trend or broadening where recognized excellence can emerge.