I read Hayek’s 1937 Economics and Knowledge in the Economica sometime ago.
Then, I came across the same essay in his 1948 collection Individualism and Economic Order.
But the footnote to the Division of Knowledge argument, where Hayek cites a long Mises footnote, crediting him, is strangely missing in the original journal article, when it caught my eye and I checked. But the book cited is Mises’ 1932 effort: so Hayek had certainly not made the footnote after the publication of the original article. Other footnotes are unaffected.
It seems the editors of Economica took it out then? Just something interesting (in a potentially unpleasant way) that caught my eye.
In other words, a person can connect the dots to see the progression of the argument, which in my mind is very important in that it heavily contributes to the usefulness of an article. Take away Hayek’s citation and boom: chain is broken.
It seems censorship in footnotes is very popular today, also.
Quite a few of many economists I’ve talked to like to discuss the “error of over-citing”; but usually what they mean, as revealed in the conversation, is to name-drop popular economists and never cite ‘unpopular’ economists. And they suggest citing less, they really mean not citing specific people.