Shocking projections: The rise of the [x-shock] construction complex in macroeconomics

How do economists think and talk about contingency? They express shock, but not in the typical sense of being surprised. In fact, mainstream economists build models in which shocking events are expected variables. An investigation of nominal forms in the [x-shock] construction (e.g., “technology shock,” “supply shock,” or “monetary shock”) among economists reveals a steep increase in the late twentieth century. We report on a large-scale empirical investigation of influential economic textbooks, top economic journals, and US Federal Reserve documents. Each corpus shows a steep rise in the frequency of nominal [x-shock] beginning in the 1980s. This quantitative analysis lays the groundwork for a qualitative analysis of the various uses of [x-shock] among economists from different schools. First, the rise of nominal shock typifies a process of de-subjectification in which shock moves from its more direct experiential uses toward a role of abstract causation. Second, the steep rise in usage coincides with the rise of general equilibrium models in some economic schools of thought. These models assume a particular type of force dynamic logic. In response, other schools invoke a contrasting force dynamic logic. These developments in the [x-shock] construction show not only semantic change but also the disciplinary logics consolidating that change.