III. RESULTS

Mauro Boianovsky is well-recognized for his work on the history of macroeconomics, the history of growth and development economics, and the history of Latin American developmentalism. Authors who stand out in his portfolio are Knut Wicksell (first and foremost), Paul Samuelson, Celso Furtado, Evsey Domar, Arthur Lewis, Dennis Robertson, Irving Fisher, and a handful of others. These aspects of his scholarship are well established. In this present volume, Maurício Coutinho examines Boianovsky’s contributions to the history of development economics, while Roger Backhouse highlights his pivotal role as a historian of macroeconomics. As such, given this existing recognition, what new insights can a bibliometric analysis provide? What can this exercise reveal that is not already apparent from a cursory review of Boianovsky’s Currículo Lattes or from reading the pieces written by Backhouse and Coutinho?

The ninety papers published throughout his career indicate that journal articles were Boianovsky’s preferred medium of scholarly communication (see also Trautwein Reference Trautwein2024, p. 370). These articles are often based on archival material, a source that featured prominently in Professor Boianovsky’s research practice throughout most periods of his career.Footnote ⁷ Among his favorite publication outlets, none appears more often than History of Political Economy (HOPE), with twenty-four papers. HOPE was also the first non-Brazilian journal in which he published a paper (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1993), marking the beginning of his strong engagement with international scholarship.

Unsurprisingly, the other two leading journals in the history of economics occupy the second and third positions. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET) published twelve of Boianovsky’s papers, whereas the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET) published ten. Collectively, these three journals account for more than half of Professor Boianovsky’s publications in our dataset (forty-six out of ninety), underscoring his deep commitment to the history of economics community. Beyond these specialized history of economics journals, other notable outlets for his work included the Review of Political Economy (seven papers) and the Cambridge Journal of Economics (six papers).

The thematic map of Boianovsky’s papers reveals two distinct clusters that constitute the motor themes of his work, both centered on the history of macroeconomics.Footnote ⁸ In a network of academic papers, motor themes are those that exhibit both high density—meaning they are internally cohesive—and high centrality, indicating their significance within the broader network of research (see Callon, Courtial, and Laville Reference Callon, Courtial and Laville1991; Cobo et al. Reference Cobo, López-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma and Herrera2011). In Boianovsky’s body of work, one of the motor themes is associated with the keywords “employment,” “inflation,” and “interest rate,” while the other revolves around “economic theory,” “business cycle,” and “capital.”

Nonetheless, this is a (static) part of the story, which highlights the attention Professor Boianovsky always dedicated to the history of macroeconomics. A word cloud offers very similar results and underscores especially “capital,” “business cycle,” “employment,” “inflation,” “interest rate,” and “historical perspective” as key concepts in the products of Boianovsky’s research. But there is more to this story, for development economics would eventually become one of his most pressing interests. Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2024, p. 587) himself wrote: “Development economics became a main subject in my research agenda around 2007, when I was attracted to the history of Brazilian economic thought after an invitation to contribute an entry about Celso Furtado (1920–2004),” which appeared in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.

The dynamic version of the thematic map is called the thematic evolution chart. This dynamic analysis confirms that development became a motor theme of his research. In this chart, his theoretical production was sliced in four intervals. The first, ranging from 1995 to 2002, presents no more than two unigrams defining his research: “Wicksell” and “theory.”Footnote ⁹ Having written his thesis and his dissertation about Wicksell, Boianovsky published five papers on Wicksell’s approach to economics during this period. Wicksell never stopped being one of Boianovsky’s research interests, but at no point in time was Wicksell so representative of his research agenda as in the period from 1995 to 2002.

From 2003 to 2009, we find that “Wicksell” and “theory” remained as key defining unigrams of Boianovsky’s research, but his work was now widened to the whole of macroeconomics, as we can also find “macroeconomics” and “growth” as central elements of his work. In the period from 2010 to 2016, Boianovsky did not forgo discussions related to “macroeconomics,” “growth,” and “Wicksell.” Now, however, we finally see the appearance of the unigram “development,” as well as “stagnation.” Unlike in other phases of his scholarship, archival evidence did not constitute the usual starting point for his research during this period. Rather than relying on primary archival materials, Boianovsky concentrated on synthesizing and interpreting key themes in development economics, particularly those concerning Latin America. Given that much of this literature was originally published in Spanish or Portuguese, his efforts were directed toward presenting and contextualizing these debates for a broader anglophone readership. The last segment, from 2017 to 2024, informs us that Professor Boianovsky’s research toward the end of his life could be summarized by the unigrams “stagnation,” “growth,” and “development”—carried on from the previous period—in addition to the unigrams “model” and “Domar,” which relate to his influential work on Russian economist Evsey Domar and the paths followed by the Harrod–Domar model, discussed below.

To complement the use of Keywords Plus, we performed a simple unigram frequency analysis based on paper titles, which are especially informative insofar as they are author-chosen rather than algorithm-generated.Footnote ¹⁰ After tokenizing titles into single words, we removed standard English stopwords and generic terms (such as “economic,” “economics,” “theory,” or “early”), retaining only alphabetic tokens longer than two characters. The resulting frequency distribution provides a coarse but informative proxy for the thematic orientation of the corpus. Consistent with the aforementioned patterns, the most frequent term in titles prior to 2002 was “Wicksell”; between 2003 and 2009, “unemployment”; from 2010 to 2016, a three-way tie between “development,” “Furtado,” and “Latin (America/American)”; and from 2017 to 2024, “development.”

The prevalence of macro and development economics within Professor Boianovsky’s research interests also shines through a co-citation network of authors. A co-citation network can be constructed either for authors or references. It indicates authors/studies frequently cited together and builds clusters of the most frequently cited authors/references. The observations in a cluster within a co-citation network thus represent the most relevant authors/references on a particular object of analysis—in our case, Boianovsky’s oeuvre. The network consists of multiple vertices connected by edges representing co-citations, and each vertex in the co-citation network represents an author or a document. The bolder the edge between two vertices, the stronger the connection between the authors or documents (see Small Reference Small1973; Almeida, Cruz-e-Silva, and Brites Reference Almeida, Cruz-e-Silva and Brites2023). In our exercise, the co-citation network of authors clearly outlines the existence of two clusters within Professor Boianovsky’s body of work, which we may identify precisely as history of macro and history of development/growth economics.

The most prominent author within the co-citation network, as Figure 1 below indicates, is Boianovsky himself. This means that Boianovsky heavily cited his own previous works in his papers, denoting that his work was marked by a cumulative process of knowledge construction instead of isolated efforts to treat disconnected subjects. The network shows Boianovsky placed in the development/growth cluster, but the centrality of this vertex is symptomatic of Boianovsky as a relevant source for his history of macro papers as well. The strong connections radiating from his name suggest that his work integrates these various traditions in the history of macroeconomics. Other relevant authors within this cluster, that is, individuals frequently cited in Boianovsky’s works related to development and growth economics, are Evsey Domar, Robert Solow, Nicholas Kaldor, Joseph Schumpeter, Joan Robinson, Celso Furtado, Friedrich List, Roy Harrod, Raúl Prebisch, and Ragnar Nurkse. Among these, we could say that authors related to growth are located in the middle of the network for their close relation to macro as well (Solow, Harrod, Domar), whereas development economists such as Nurkse, Furtado, and Prebisch are placed in the far left of Figure 1. This makes perfect sense if we consider that growth economics may be understood as long-term macroeconomics as well, whereas development economics à la Nurkse and Prebisch is not so akin to conventional macroeconomics. Accordingly, it is almost as if his interest in the history of growth economics were a synthesis of his focus on the history of macro and the history of development economics. In fact, his interest in growth was basically an offspring of his interest in development. In his own words: “the study of development economics came together with a related interest in growth economics” (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2024, pp. 587–588). By bridging these two areas, macro and development economics, Boianovsky’s work not only examined the theoretical evolution of growth models but also contextualized them within the broader intellectual currents of macroeconomic and developmental thought.

Figure 1.

Co-citation Network of Authors.

Figure 1. Long description

A radial network diagram where nodes represent authors and lines represent co-citation links.

At the center of the network is the largest node, labeled boianovsky m, which serves as the primary hub for the entire graph. Directly above this hub are nodes for blaug m and solow r m.

To the West, a distinct and relatively isolated cluster contains nodes for nurkse r, prebisch r, lewis w a, list f, and furtado c. These are connected to the central hub primarily through harrod r f.

To the North and Northwest of the center, a cluster includes krugman p, schumpeter j a, mill j s, robinson j, and kaldor n.

To the East, the most dense region of the network contains numerous overlapping nodes. Key prominent names in this cluster include keynes j m, samuelson p a, wicksell k, hicks j, and patinkin d. Higher up in this Eastern section are svennilson i, hansen a h, and fisher i.

To the South and Southeast, the network extends toward harcourt g c, lucas r e, and benassy j p. A smaller node for clower r w is located at the far Southeast perimeter.

The history of macro cluster, alternatively, does not have a prominent vertex as does the development/growth cluster. The ones that marginally stand out as the most representative figures here are—unsurprisingly—John Maynard Keynes and Knut Wicksell. Other relevant names in this cluster are Milton Friedman, Oskar Lange, Dennis Robertson, Gottfried Haberler, Axel Leijonhufvud, Edmund Phelps, Paul Samuelson, John Hicks, and David Laidler.

The co-citation network of documents (in a nutshell, papers and books) is nonetheless perhaps more revealing. Curiously, this co-citation network generates three clusters instead of two.Footnote ¹¹ The development/growth cluster is still easily discernible, concentrated as it is on the upper-right quadrant of Figure 2. Its most prominent vertex is Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis, which is in fact the work Mauro Boianovsky cited the most in his works—followed by Keynes’s General Theory. Footnote ¹²

Figure 2.

Co-citation Network of Documents.

Figure 2. Long description

The network diagram consists of rectangular nodes representing academic papers, connected by lines of varying thickness indicating citation strength.

At the center of the network are two dominant hubs with the largest font sizes: schumpeter j.a. 1954 and keynes j.m. 1936. These two nodes are heavily connected to each other and to the surrounding clusters.

In the West and Northwest quadrant, a dense cluster of light-colored nodes includes boianovsky m. 1992, cassel g. 1918, and hoover k.d. 1988. These are linked primarily to the Schumpeter hub.

In the South and Southwest quadrant, a very dense cluster of dark-colored nodes surrounds the Keynes 1936 hub. Key nodes here include hicks j. 1946, lange o. 1944, woodford m. 2003, and champernowne d.g. 1936. This area shows the highest concentration of overlapping connections.

In the Northeast quadrant, a distinct, more isolated cluster includes prebisch r. 1950, furtado c. 1958, and hirschman a. 1958. This group is connected to the main network via boianovsky m. 2010 and ray d. 1998.

In the East, a sparse chain of nodes including harrod r.f. 1948 and harrod r.f. 1939 connects the upper and lower sections of the network.

Schumpeter’s monumental historical work does not, by itself, justify defining this cluster as a development/growth one. In fact, History of Economic Analysis occupies an intermediary position within the network, bridging the three clusters rather than fitting neatly into any single one. However, the other key works in this cluster strongly support its classification as development and growth–oriented.

Notable among these are Roy Harrod’s seminal 1939 paper An Essay in Dynamic Theory, a foundational work for the Harrod–Domar model; Albert Hirschman’s 1958 book The Strategy of Economic Development, a landmark contribution to development economics; and Debraj Ray’s 1998 textbook Development Economics, which Boianovsky frequently referenced when introducing key concepts related to growth and development in his own work. These documents reinforce the thematic coherence of this cluster within Boianovsky’s broader research agenda.

The range of topics covered in the articles that form this cluster is also broad. For instance, Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2013c) revisited the Economic Commission for Latin America’s (ECLAC) role in the 1950s international debate on investment allocation and the choice of techniques in development planning. Furtado, himself an ECLAC economist, appears frequently in the papers within this cluster—some of which will be discussed below—reinforcing his significance in Boianovsky’s research. Additionally, this cluster includes analyses of other key figures in development and growth economics, such as Evsey Domar and Friedrich List. These economists played an important role in shaping Boianovsky’s exploration of development thought, highlighting the intellectual depth and historical breadth of his scholarship in this area.

The other two clusters in Figure 2 are not as intuitive to define, as both relate to macro. An analysis of the papers that constitute each cluster, nonetheless, allows us to define them as a “pre-Keynes macro” cluster—or Wicksellian cluster—(upper-left quadrant), and “post-Keynes macro” cluster (lower-left quadrant)—not to be confused with post-Keynesian macroeconomics. The decisive event that divides these two clusters within Boianovsky’s research agenda is the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936, which is actually one of the most prominent vertices in the network as a whole and the most significant vertex in the post-Keynes macro cluster.

Most of the pre-Keynes cluster is focused on Wicksell—Torsten Gårdlund (Reference Gårdlund1958), for instance, is a biography of him—making Wicksellian a suitable alternative for this thematic group. Since a defining feature of Boianovsky’s scholarship was his careful attention to historical and intellectual context—he was “a master of rich contextualization,” as per Hans-Michael Trautwein (Reference Trautwein2024, p. 371)—he was naturally led to engage with Wicksell’s contemporaries as well. This explains the presence of works by Alfred Marshall and Gustav Cassel in this cluster. Laidler (Reference Laidler1991), for example, is a book that explores the monetary debates of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in which Wicksell, alongside Marshall and Irving Fisher, figures as one of the central protagonists, while Laidler (Reference Laidler1999) scrutinizes the advances in macroeconomics that led to the so-called (fabrication of the) Keynesian Revolution. These connections illustrate how Boianovsky’s engagement with Wicksell extended beyond his immediate contributions, encompassing a broader network of intellectual influences in the history of macroeconomic thought.

Boianovsky’s contributions in this area were extensive. His first paper engaging with Wicksellian theories was published in Portuguese in 1992. This study focused on John Hicks’s monetary thought, illustrating how Hicks’s reading of Wicksell led him to both adopt and later depart from Friedrich Hayek’s Austrian interpretation. The paper underscores Wicksell’s lasting influence on debates surrounding equilibrium, monetary instability, and the role of interest rates in economic fluctuations (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1992). From this early work to his later analysis of the relationship between secular stagnation and Wicksell’s concept of the natural rate of interest (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2017), the Swedish economist remained a recurring figure in Boianovsky’s scholarship. Over the course of his career, he authored fourteen papers on Wicksell, including four in collaboration with Hans-Michael Trautwein—who, in this present volume, explores Boianovsky’s significance within the Wicksellian scholarship—including one of Boianovsky’s “favorite papers ever” (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2024, p. 586; see Boianovsky and Trautwein Reference Boianovsky and Trautwein2006).

Yet again, Wicksell was not, however, the only character treated by Professor Boianovsky in the works that form the pre-Keynes cluster. His research also addressed topics such as the origins of the term “veil of money” in Eugen Böhm-Bawerk’s thought (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1993) and the treatment of business cycles in the work of Vilfredo Pareto (Boianovsky and Tarascio Reference Boianovsky and Tarascio1998), for instance. In Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky1993), he argued that while Böhm-Bawerk did not explicitly use the term “veil of money” to denote monetary neutrality, his use of monetary metaphors shaped later interpretations that increasingly aligned with the neoclassical notion of money as a passive medium of exchange. Boianovsky and Vincent Tarascio’s 1998 article examines Pareto’s early attempt to construct a mathematical model of the business cycle, which drew on principles of mechanical inertia from classical physics and modeled cyclical fluctuations as oscillations in consumption driven by resistance to change in economic behavior. These studies illustrate Boianovsky’s broad engagement with pre-Keynes macroeconomic thought, extending beyond Wicksell to explore lesser-known but conceptually rich contributions to early macroeconomic debates.

The post-Keynes period, as covered in Boianovsky’s work, spans a broad historical range. It includes his studies on Keynes’s contemporaries at Cambridge, such as David Champernowne, Dennis Robertson, and Joan Robinson (see Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2005, Reference Boianovsky2009, Reference Boianovsky2014, Reference Boianovsky2018b), as well as more recent figures like Lawrence Summers (Backhouse and Boianovsky Reference Backhouse and Boianovsky2024). Indeed, the presence of Michael Woodford (Reference Woodford2003) in this cluster reinforces a historical engagement that extends into modern macroeconomic debates—Woodford’s explicit admiration for Wicksell was undoubtedly a contributing factor, as evidenced by his decision to title his book Interest and Prices, in a direct reference to Wicksell’s seminal work. Therefore, this thematic cluster represents Professor Boianovsky’s painstaking efforts to trace the evolution of macroeconomics as a field of research. His contributions extend from biographical and intellectual studies of leading macroeconomists to the histories of foundational concepts and models within the discipline. Notable examples include his work on the IS-LM model (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2004), the Harrod–Domar model (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2018a), and the concept of secular stagnation (Backhouse and Boianovsky Reference Backhouse and Boianovsky2016). Through these studies, Boianovsky not only documented the historical development of macroeconomic thought but also engaged critically with its shifting theoretical and methodological foundations.

Boianovsky’s own works appear as relevant vertices within the co-citation network, suggesting that some of his earlier contributions influenced his later research. This pattern indicates a degree of continuity in his scholarship, where previous findings informed and shaped subsequent inquiries. In the pre-Keynes macro cluster, we find four of his papers (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1992, Reference Boianovsky1995, Reference Boianovsky1998b). In the development/growth cluster, three of his works are prominent (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2010, Reference Boianovsky2013b, Reference Boianovsky2018a). Lastly, in the post-Keynes macro cluster, one of his earlier papers (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1998a) is particularly relevant. This internal citation dynamic underscores the thematic cohesion of Boianovsky’s research across different strands of macroeconomic and development thought.

The works mentioned in the pre-Keynes cluster are Professor Boianovsky’s aforementioned treatment of Wicksell’s influence on Hicks (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1992), the condensed version of his dissertation published in EJHET discussing the business cycle in Wicksell’s work (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1995), and his discussion of Wicksell’s treatment of deflation—both its 1995 presentation at the HES meeting and its published version in HOPE (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky1998b). Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky1995) explores Wicksell’s attempt to develop a business cycle theory, positioning his contributions within the broader intellectual landscape of early twentieth-century macroeconomics. It demonstrates how Wicksell sought to explain cyclical fluctuations through a dynamic equilibrium framework, distinguishing between structural overproduction and monetary-induced crises, yet never fully systematizing these insights into a comprehensive theory. The study’s major contribution lies in reassessing Wicksell’s influence on later business cycle theories, revealing how his ideas anticipated key elements of subsequent macroeconomic thought, from the Austrian school to modern real business cycle models. Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky1998b), on its turn, examines Wicksell’s interpretation of the severe deflation of 1920 to 1922, a period that contrasted sharply with the milder deflation of 1873 to 1896, which had little impact on economic activity. It reconstructs Wicksell’s evolving views on monetary policy, highlighting his initial support for a gradual return to pre-war price levels and his later recognition of the destabilizing effects of unanticipated deflation, including debt burdens and bankruptcy risks. The study’s major contribution lies in revealing how Wicksell’s engagement with postwar monetary debates influenced his later ideas on price stability, indexing contracts, and the limits of monetary policy in controlling economic downturns.

In the post-Keynes macro cluster, we find Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky1998a). Wicksell is once again there, though. The paper examines the role of real balances in price level determination and their function as a unit of account, tracing the evolution of monetary thought from Wicksell to Don Patinkin. It highlights how Wicksell’s cumulative process framework laid the foundation for understanding monetary disequilibrium, while Patinkin’s real balance effect introduced a fundamental modification by integrating money directly into general equilibrium analysis. The study’s major contribution lies in reassessing the conceptual links between these approaches, shedding light on their implications for modern debates on price stability and monetary policy.

Moreover, in the development/growth cluster we find three other papers. Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2010) examines Furtado’s foundational role in shaping development economics during the 1950s, emphasizing his structuralist interpretation of underdevelopment as historically and institutionally embedded. This paper demonstrates how Furtado’s work diverged from mainstream growth theories by integrating historical analysis with economic modeling to explain the persistent disparities between developed and underdeveloped nations. The study’s major contribution lies in repositioning Furtado within the broader narrative of development thought, highlighting his insights on technological heterogeneity, dependency, and the limits of capital accumulation in fostering sustainable growth.

Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2013b) investigates Alexander von Humboldt’s influence on nineteenth-century economic thought, particularly in relation to natural resources, institutions, and underdevelopment. It explores how classical economists, including Thomas Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, engaged with Von Humboldt’s empirical accounts of Spanish America to refine their theories on economic growth, labor supply, and the role of institutions. The study’s major contribution lies in revealing how Von Humboldt’s interdisciplinary approach to geography and political economy shaped foundational debates on the relationship between natural wealth, economic incentives, and institutional development.

In addition, Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2018a) discusses the models of Roy Harrod and Evsey Domar and offers a very original interpretation of their nature: Their models, which came to be taught as the Harrod–Domar model, were primarily concerned with economic instability rather than long-term development. The article, therefore, reveals how development economists of the 1950s misinterpreted the Harrod–Domar framework to fit planning agendas, diverging from the original theoretical intent. Boianovsky’s research on Harrod and Domar was so extensive that, as mentioned before, Domar appears as a defining unigram of his research in the period from 2017 to 2024—the only name to appear in this capacity besides Wicksell.

At last, Google Scholar provides insight into Boianovsky’s most influential papers within the broader economics profession—at least to the extent that citation counts serve as a proxy for scholarly impact. While the co-citation network informs us which of Boianovsky’s papers were the most important within the network of his own works, overall citation numbers offer a measure of his influence in the field more generally. According to Google Scholar, five of Professor Boianovsky’s articles stand out with more than 100 citations—a threshold arbitrarily set for this study. These include Backhouse and Boianovsky (Reference Backhouse and Boianovsky2016), as well as Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2004, Reference Boianovsky2010, Reference Boianovsky2012, Reference Boianovsky2013a). These works, by receiving substantial attention from other scholars, illustrate the reach and impact of Boianovsky’s contributions across different areas of the history of economics.

Backhouse and Boianovsky (Reference Backhouse and Boianovsky2016), a paper on the history of macroeconomics, was published in a special issue of EJHET. This is Boianovsky’s most cited article. It traces the intellectual history of the concept of secular stagnation, demonstrating how it evolved from Alvin Hansen’s original formulation to its modern revival in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It shows that while Hansen’s thesis was initially dismissed following postwar economic growth, its core ideas kept re-emerging to challenge mainstream macroeconomic assumptions about equilibrium and growth potential. The study’s major contribution lies in revealing secular stagnation as a recurring, yet often contested, theme in economic thought, shaped by shifting historical contexts and policy debates.

Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2004) is also a paper on the history of macroeconomics. This paper examines the historical evolution of the liquidity trap concept, tracing its development from John Hicks’s original IS-LM formulation to Paul Krugman’s modern reinterpretation in the context of late twentieth-century economic crises. It demonstrates how the liquidity trap has shifted from a theoretical constraint on monetary policy effectiveness to a practical issue in macroeconomic stabilization, particularly in environments with near-zero interest rates. The study’s major contribution lies in bridging historical and contemporary macroeconomic thought, revealing how shifts in economic conditions have redefined the relevance and application of the liquidity trap in policy debates.

The other three of his most cited works were published in HOPE and touched upon development economics, rather than on macroeconomics. Two had Celso Furtado, the most famous economist among Boianovsky’s fellow countrypeople, as protagonist, whereas the other one discussed the work of Friedrich List while keeping Latin America in sight. These works, therefore, had a great impact on our understanding of structuralist economic thought in Latin America. Two of these studies have forty-six pages, and the other has fifty-four (!). These long articles are actually a testimony to the richness of information and erudition that Boianovsky offered to the community.

Boianovsky’s Reference Boianovsky2010 paper on Furtado is also present within the co-citation network discussed earlier and has already been summarized. His engagement with Furtado’s work extended further in Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2012), an in-depth, fifty-four-page study that provided a detailed examination of Furtado’s contributions. This paper revisits the structuralist-monetarist debate on economic stabilization in Latin America, focusing on Furtado’s critical role in shaping structuralist thought. It demonstrates how his theoretical and policy contributions challenged the monetarist orthodoxy of the International Monetary Fund by framing inflation not as a purely monetary phenomenon but as a structural outcome of economic development and external disequilibria. Boianovsky’s main contribution with this study was to illuminate the intellectual and policy tensions between competing economic paradigms in mid-twentieth-century Latin America, offering new insights into the historical roots of stabilization strategies in the region.

Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2013a) explores List’s often-overlooked views on the economic development of tropical countries, revealing the contradictions between his theoretical framework and its reception in Latin America. It demonstrates how List’s distinction between temperate and tropical regions, grounded in environmental determinism, was reinterpreted and even contradicted by Latin American thinkers who adapted his ideas to justify industrialization and economic nationalism. The study’s major contribution lies in uncovering the historical misalignment between List’s original theories and their application in development discourse across the Global South, something that usually is ignored by those who place List as a precursor of Latin American developmentalism.

Finally, if we consider the average citation per year as an appropriate proxy for influence, Boianovsky (Reference Boianovsky2018a), presented above, deserves a mention as well, as it had not reached 100 citations as per the last time Google Scholar was checked but has the highest average citation per year among Boianovsky’s papers.

Taken together, these six works are very much representative of Mauro Boianovsky’s oeuvre. Four of them were published in HOPE, his most frequent outlet. Three of them treat the history of development economics, two discuss the history of macroeconomics, and one touches upon the history of growth economics (provided that we can separate development from growth economics). These works cover figures from diverse backgrounds and nationalities—including a Brazilian like himself, as well as American, British, German, and Russian economists. This is hardly surprising for someone who went so far as to learn Swedish just to access Wicksell’s personal archives.