Content uploaded by N. Emrah Aydinonat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by N. Emrah Aydinonat on Feb 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Using and Abusing Models in Economics A Review of Rodrik's Economics Rules
Abstract
Economics Rules is an excellent book; a must read for economists, philosophers of economics, and policy makers, and of course for economics students. And if you consider yourself as a critical economist, a heterodox economist, or a social scientist who is critical of the way in which economists work, behave, etc., the book has a lot to offer to you too (probably a lot to disagree about, but also a new perspective on economic models). While Dani Rodrik defends economics against popular lines of criticism; he also presents his own critique.
... Why is Economics Rules an intriguing book for philosophers of economics? There are some obvious reasons: it concerns economic methodology, it is written by a prominent economist, it is well-thought and well-written, and so on (Aydinonat, 2015(Aydinonat, , 2016. In addition to these obvious reasons, I think, its following features make it particularly attractive for philosophers of economics. ...
... His account clearly contains hints of Friedman, Samuelson, Machlup, Gibbard and Varian. It also carries flavors from the works of philosophers of economics such as Uskali Mäki and Nancy Cartwright (Aydinonat, 2015(Aydinonat, , 2016. Rodrik follows them in seeing the value of models in their ability to isolate and focus on certain causal mechanisms, and conceptualizing models as thought experiments. ...
Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.
... Why is Economics Rules an intriguing book for philosophers of economics? There are some obvious reasons: it concerns economic methodology, it is written by a prominent economist, it is well-thought and well-written, and so on (Aydinonat, 2015(Aydinonat, , 2016. In addition to these obvious reasons, I think, its following features make it particularly attractive for philosophers of economics. ...
... His account clearly contains hints of Friedman, Samuelson, Machlup, Gibbard and Varian. It also carries flavors from the works of philosophers of economics such as Uskali Mäki and Nancy Cartwright (Aydinonat, 2015(Aydinonat, , 2016. Rodrik follows them in seeing the value of models in their ability to isolate and focus on certain causal mechanisms, and conceptualizing models as thought experiments. ...
Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik's account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in mutually beneficial exchange that could better our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik's Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.
... Economics Rules is geared towards a wider audience and so far has attracted many positive reviews. I recommend the essays by Rubinstein (2017) and Aydınonat (2015). Nevertheless, it provokes some critical questions. ...
... Economics Rules is geared towards a wider audience and so far has attracted many positive reviews. I recommend the essays by Rubinstein (2017) and Aydınonat (2015). Nevertheless, it provokes some critical questions. ...
... In this review, I focus on issues that will interest philosophers of economics (for a more general review and a chapter by chapter guide to Economics rules, see Aydinonat 2015). ...
This paper discusses the epistemic import of highly abstract and simplified theoretical models using Thomas Schelling's checkerboard model as an example. We argue that the epistemic contribution of theoretical models can be better understood in the context of a cluster of models relevant to the explanatory task at hand. The central claim of the paper is that theoretical models make better sense in the context of a menu of possible explanations. In order to justify this claim, we introduce a distinction between causal scenarios and causal mechanism schemes. These conceptual tools help us to articulate the basis for modelers' intuitive confidence that their models make an important epistemic contribution. By focusing on the role of the menu of possible explanations in the evaluation of explanatory hypotheses, it is possible to understand how a causal mechanism scheme can improve our explanatory understanding even in cases where it does not describe the actual cause of a particular phenomenon.
Mathiness lets academic politics masquerade as science. Like mathematical theory, mathiness uses a mixture of words and symbols, but instead of making tight links, it leaves ample room for slippage between statements in the languages of words as opposed to symbols, and between statements with theoretical as opposed to empirical content. Because it is difficult to distinguish mathiness from mathematical theory, the market for lemons tells us that the market for mathematical theory might collapse, leaving only mathiness as entertainment that is worth little but cheap to produce.
Minnesota) I've read many commentaries in 2008 and 2009 on the state of macroeconomics. For what it's worth, I thought that I'd offer my own thoughts on the topic. I begin with a table. It considers the top 17 economics departments, as ranked by US News and World Report in 2009. (I would have used 15, but there was a 4-way tie for 14 th in the rankings.) For each of these departments, the table lists all tenured macroeconomists who received their Ph. D. in 1990 or after. In terms of determining fields of specialization, I used self-classifications from c.v.'s, departmental classifications, and my own knowledge of teaching assignments.
Milton Friedman (1912–2006) was born in Brooklyn, New York, and received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University. He taught at the University of Minnesota, and then for many years at the University of Chicago. After 1977, he was a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California. Friedman is best known for his work in monetary theory and for his concern for free enterprise and individual liberty. Milton Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. The following essay, which is reprinted in its entirety, is the most influential work on economic methodology of this century. In his admirable book on The Scope and Method of Political Economy John Neville Keynes distinguishes among “a positive science … [,] a body of systematized knowledge concerning what is; a normative or regulative science … [,] a body of systematized knowledge discussing criteria of what ought to be …; an art … [,] a system of rules for the attainment of a given end”; comments that “confusion between them is common and has been the source of many mischievous errors”; and urges the importance of “recognizing a distinct positive science of political economy.” This [essay] is concerned primarily with certain methodological problems that arise in constructing the “distinct positive science” Keynes called for – in particular, the problem how to decide whether a suggested hypothesis or theory should be tentatively accepted as part of the “body of systematized knowledge concerning what is.”