http://books.google.com/books?id=oRgQ2goeFzwC&lpg=PP1...
Apparently, though, this "discovery" made a real impression on this NY Times writer. I don't like it when people take well-established ideas from another field, dress it up in new lingo and statistics ("corporate productivity, unlike urban productivity, was entirely sublinear") and try to market it as new research.
That was the impression I got from a lot the results claimed by this guy; I think he's wrong to pass off gross oversimplifications as scientific progress. I can see why he gets cited, and it's part of the mistake with correlating citations with influence: they were probably mostly negative mentions. To be honest this behavior is a little trollish. As we can see here, he gets his publicity for it.
Somebody said below "Title should be 'A Physicist Plays Economist'"--yes, indeed.