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

• A steep rise in the use of shock as a noun or nominal among economists appears in the 1980s. • The meaning of shock is bleached of all its subjective affect in favor of abstract causation. • Different schools use shock in contrasting ways to conceptualize force and counterforce. 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.