It contains around 3,000 entries, including many classic essays from the original Inglis Palgrave Dictionary, and a significant increase in new entries from the previous editions by the most prominent economists in the field, among them 36 winners of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
[3] It was roughly twice the length of its predecessor and differed further in excluding most subjects not on economics or closely related to its practice.
[6] It was developed as a modern version of the old Inglis Palgrave dictionary, with entries written by prominent economists for a highly specialized public.
Reviewing the 1987 edition for the New York Times, Robert M. Solow concluded that "this is a dictionary only in a very special sense.
That is why, if you consult Palgrave looking for enlightenment about the world today, you will be led to technical economics, or history, or nothing at all.
The articles on financial economics were "written by the best people—Stephen Ross, Robert Merton, and others—and they show it"; however, they were too difficult for the average investor.
Complimenting the article on international trade, Solow added a caveat lector: "But God forbid that" a reader without knowledge of economics should try to understand protectionism, by consulting the New Palgrave.
[9] Stigler criticized the New Palgrave for largely ignoring empirical economics—economic data, summary statistics, and econometric investigations.
[10] "The article on 'Profit and profit theory' does not contain a single number for what profits are or ever have been, in the United States or any other country, or any reference to any source that might provide such a number", wrote Herbert Stein, who complained "There are articles about elasticities of this or that but no estimate of the elasticity of anything.
The most obvious, though not the most important, manifestation of imbalance is the large number of items devoted to Marxist themes, from "abstract and concrete labor" to "vulgar economy."
The New Palgrave does not take up the issue head on, but I think it gives a false impression of the state of play by this deadpan statement.
Israel Kirzner's essay on the Austrian economists does not hint at the existence of error, misrepresentation of critics, or tasteless attacks upon the German Historical School, and Klaus Henning (sic.)
Stigler provided a table of articles that were biased by Marxist orthodoxy and also criticized some authors by name, especially a "violently pro-Marxist" entry by C. B. Macpherson on individualism.
[13] It added considerably on the previous edition, and maintained the general conception of the dictionary as written for advanced specialists.
Professional reaction has been described as generally favorable and unsurprising, "given that almost all economists of any repute had already endorsed the enterprise by agreeing to contribute.