Pub Date : 2022-03-11DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854
D. Ross
ABSTRACT The rise of behavioral economics since the 1980s led to richer mutual influence between economic and psychological theory and experimentation. However, as behavioral economics has become increasingly integrated into the main stream in economics, and as psychology has remained damagingly methodologically conservative, this convergence has recently gone into reverse. At the same time, growing appreciation among economists of the limitations of atomistic individualism, along with advantages in econometric modeling flexibility by comparison with psychometrics, is leading economists to become more pluralistic than psychologists about the ontology of behavioral causation and structures. This, combined with economists’ growing interest in network models, is drawing economists closer in theory and practice to sociologists who use quantitative or mixed methods.
{"title":"Economics is converging with sociology but not with psychology","authors":"D. Ross","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rise of behavioral economics since the 1980s led to richer mutual influence between economic and psychological theory and experimentation. However, as behavioral economics has become increasingly integrated into the main stream in economics, and as psychology has remained damagingly methodologically conservative, this convergence has recently gone into reverse. At the same time, growing appreciation among economists of the limitations of atomistic individualism, along with advantages in econometric modeling flexibility by comparison with psychometrics, is leading economists to become more pluralistic than psychologists about the ontology of behavioral causation and structures. This, combined with economists’ growing interest in network models, is drawing economists closer in theory and practice to sociologists who use quantitative or mixed methods.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"13 1","pages":"135 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75467441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2040740
N. Stern, J. Stiglitz, Charlotte A. Taylor
ABSTRACT Designing policy for climate change requires analyses which integrate the interrelationship between the economy and the environment. We argue that, despite their dominance in the economics literature and influence in public discussion and policymaking, the methodology employed by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) rests on flawed foundations, which become particularly relevant in relation to the realities of the immense risks and challenges of climate change, and the radical changes in our economies that a sound and effective response require. We identify a set of critical methodological problems with the IAMs which limit their usefulness and discuss the analytic foundations of an alternative approach that is more capable of providing insights into how best to manage the transition to net-zero emissions.
{"title":"The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change","authors":"N. Stern, J. Stiglitz, Charlotte A. Taylor","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2040740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2040740","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Designing policy for climate change requires analyses which integrate the interrelationship between the economy and the environment. We argue that, despite their dominance in the economics literature and influence in public discussion and policymaking, the methodology employed by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) rests on flawed foundations, which become particularly relevant in relation to the realities of the immense risks and challenges of climate change, and the radical changes in our economies that a sound and effective response require. We identify a set of critical methodological problems with the IAMs which limit their usefulness and discuss the analytic foundations of an alternative approach that is more capable of providing insights into how best to manage the transition to net-zero emissions.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"8 1","pages":"181 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85758612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-07DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2035796
K. Finestone
ABSTRACT The rational expectations hypothesis holds that agents should be modeled as not making systematic forecasting errors and has become a central model-building principle of modern economics. The hypothesis is often justified on the grounds that it coheres with the general methodological principle of economic rationality. In this article, I propose a novel Darwinian market justification for rational expectations which does not require either structural knowledge or statistical learning, as is commonly required in the economic literature. Rather, this Darwinian market account reconceives rationality as a market level phenomenon instead of as an individualistic property.
{"title":"Darwinian rational expectations","authors":"K. Finestone","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2035796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2035796","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 The rational expectations hypothesis holds that agents should be modeled as not making systematic forecasting errors and has become a central model-building principle of modern economics. The hypothesis is often justified on the grounds that it coheres with the general methodological principle of economic rationality. In this article, I propose a novel Darwinian market justification for rational expectations which does not require either structural knowledge or statistical learning, as is commonly required in the economic literature. Rather, this Darwinian market account reconceives rationality as a market level phenomenon instead of as an individualistic property.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"127 1","pages":"113 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75844632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-04DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032955
J. Nelson
{"title":"Review of an advanced introduction to feminist economics","authors":"J. Nelson","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032955","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"39 1","pages":"178 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80427296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033810
William C. Grant
ABSTRACT This paper examines methods for narrating consciousness in game theory. In order to represent how players process their environment, posture towards one another, and hold themselves accountable to their own thinking, I find two distinct ways that game theorists narrate the consciousness of their players. Quoted monologue is a player’s internal language, which can be articulated to show a player’s perspective to the reader. The other narrative mode is psycho-narration, which puts the external technical skills of the game-theorist into the narrator’s hands to describe a player’s mental activity with more complexity than quoted monologue. Quoted monologue and psycho-narration communicate players’ thoughts in ways that convince the readers of the players’ positions, clarify game solution concepts, and enliven the written text.
{"title":"Transparent players: the use of narrative voices in game theory","authors":"William C. Grant","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033810","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines methods for narrating consciousness in game theory. In order to represent how players process their environment, posture towards one another, and hold themselves accountable to their own thinking, I find two distinct ways that game theorists narrate the consciousness of their players. Quoted monologue is a player’s internal language, which can be articulated to show a player’s perspective to the reader. The other narrative mode is psycho-narration, which puts the external technical skills of the game-theorist into the narrator’s hands to describe a player’s mental activity with more complexity than quoted monologue. Quoted monologue and psycho-narration communicate players’ thoughts in ways that convince the readers of the players’ positions, clarify game solution concepts, and enliven the written text.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"81 1","pages":"263 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83986747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033812
Peter Galbács
Fifty years have passed since the Journal of Economic Theory published Robert E. Lucas’s seminal paper (1972) on expectations and the neutrality of money. The influence this contribution exerted on how we today think about macroeconomic theory and methodology proved to be so profound and far-reaching that it is still one of the core works of the macroeconomic corpus. Improvements in science, however, are seldom linear and cumulative, new developments may thus surpass once powerful and well-performing theories by showing that their old truths are not general and eternal but partial and temporary only. Not even a Nobel prize is a guarantee of a theory being a fixed star in the sky of science. The 50th anniversary of the neutrality paper promises to be a good opportunity for reflecting on its impact, and ask how the profession assesses this pathbreaking contribution in the light of the developments of the past few decades. In May 1995, a few months before the early-October press release announcing Lucas’s Nobel prize in economics, Rao Aiyagari set up a meeting to celebrate the 25th anniversary. Some of the authors in this special issue also attended that conference. With this special issue we aspire to do the same: to revisit, to evaluate, to celebrate and to appreciate. Hopefully, this symposium, just as the 25th anniversary conference, will promote theoretical and methodological thinking and equally prove to be a nice surprise to a hero of ‘the golden age of macroeconomics’ as Blanchard (2000, p. 1379) termed the 1940–1970s. The papers in this issue are organized into two sections. After the introductory paper that summarizes the strikingly rapid intellectual and technical progress which led Lucas to the neutrality paper, the first section contains three articles by three authors from three subsequent periods of Lucas’s career. These articles assess Lucas’s achievements in areas such as university teaching, model building or econometric practice. All these articles are meant to combine personal, occasionally even subjective, reflections on Lucas’s lifework with theoretically and methodologically anchored comprehensive evaluations. The personal touch is most saliently present in Tom Sargent’s account who tells the so far untold story of his friendship with Lucas and how they joined forces in the 1960–1970s in their battle against the then conventional Keynesian way of macroeconomic modeling. Max Gillman, Lucas’s former graduate student at the University of Chicago, embeds his recollections of Lucas’s professorship into describing the various ways the neutrality paper still shapes macroeconomic thinking. In a similar vein, Harald Uhlig, a current faculty member at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago, offers an insider look into the Chicago milieu and explains how and in what ways it still preserves Lucas’s fingerprints. These articles also include personal recollections and will be valuable resources for historians and methodolo
自《经济理论杂志》(Journal of Economic Theory)发表罗伯特·e·卢卡斯(Robert E. Lucas)关于预期和货币中性的开创性论文(1972年)以来，已经过去了50年。这一贡献对我们今天如何思考宏观经济理论和方法的影响被证明是如此深刻和深远，以至于它仍然是宏观经济语料库的核心著作之一。然而，科学的进步很少是线性的和累积的，新的发展可能因此超越曾经强大和表现良好的理论，表明它们的旧真理不是一般的和永恒的，而是部分的和暂时的。即使是诺贝尔奖也不能保证一个理论是科学天空中的一颗恒星。中立性文件发表50周年是一个很好的机会，可以反思其影响，并根据过去几十年的发展，询问专业人士如何评估这一开创性的贡献。1995年5月，也就是10月初宣布卢卡斯获得诺贝尔经济学奖的新闻发布会的几个月前，拉奥·艾雅加里(Rao Aiyagari)组织了一次会议，庆祝卢卡斯获得诺贝尔经济学奖25周年。本期特刊的一些作者也参加了那次会议。在本期特刊中，我们希望做同样的事情:重新审视，评价，庆祝和欣赏。希望这次研讨会，就像25周年纪念会议一样，将促进理论和方法的思考，并同样证明对布兰查德(2000,p. 1379)所说的1940 - 1970年代的“宏观经济学黄金时代”的英雄来说是一个惊喜。本期的论文分为两部分。介绍性论文总结了导致卢卡斯发表中立性论文的惊人的智力和技术进步之后，第一部分包含了卢卡斯职业生涯随后三个时期的三位作者的三篇文章。这些文章评估了卢卡斯在大学教学、模型构建或计量经济学实践等领域的成就。所有这些文章都是为了将个人的，偶尔甚至是主观的，对卢卡斯一生工作的反思与理论和方法上的全面评估结合起来。在汤姆•萨金特(Tom Sargent)的叙述中，个人的感触最为明显。他讲述了自己与卢卡斯迄今未为人知的友谊故事，以及他们如何在上世纪60至70年代联手对抗当时传统的凯恩斯主义宏观经济建模方法。马克斯•吉尔曼(Max Gillman)是卢卡斯在芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)的前研究生，他在回忆卢卡斯的教授生涯时，描述了中立论文仍在以各种方式塑造宏观经济思维。同样地，芝加哥大学经济系现任教员哈拉尔德·乌利格(Harald Uhlig)以一种局内人的视角审视了芝加哥的环境，并解释了它如何以及以何种方式保留了卢卡斯的印记。这些文章还包括个人回忆，对于那些想要超越出版文本主体的历史学家和方法学家来说，这将是宝贵的资源。因此，除了打算为卢卡斯的接受提供新的动力外，这些论文还有望推动对现代宏观经济学的历史评估，特别是对芝加哥学派的历史评估。
{"title":"Introduction: Lucas’s enduring impact on macroeconomic thinking","authors":"Peter Galbács","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033812","url":null,"abstract":"Fifty years have passed since the Journal of Economic Theory published Robert E. Lucas’s seminal paper (1972) on expectations and the neutrality of money. The influence this contribution exerted on how we today think about macroeconomic theory and methodology proved to be so profound and far-reaching that it is still one of the core works of the macroeconomic corpus. Improvements in science, however, are seldom linear and cumulative, new developments may thus surpass once powerful and well-performing theories by showing that their old truths are not general and eternal but partial and temporary only. Not even a Nobel prize is a guarantee of a theory being a fixed star in the sky of science. The 50th anniversary of the neutrality paper promises to be a good opportunity for reflecting on its impact, and ask how the profession assesses this pathbreaking contribution in the light of the developments of the past few decades. In May 1995, a few months before the early-October press release announcing Lucas’s Nobel prize in economics, Rao Aiyagari set up a meeting to celebrate the 25th anniversary. Some of the authors in this special issue also attended that conference. With this special issue we aspire to do the same: to revisit, to evaluate, to celebrate and to appreciate. Hopefully, this symposium, just as the 25th anniversary conference, will promote theoretical and methodological thinking and equally prove to be a nice surprise to a hero of ‘the golden age of macroeconomics’ as Blanchard (2000, p. 1379) termed the 1940–1970s. The papers in this issue are organized into two sections. After the introductory paper that summarizes the strikingly rapid intellectual and technical progress which led Lucas to the neutrality paper, the first section contains three articles by three authors from three subsequent periods of Lucas’s career. These articles assess Lucas’s achievements in areas such as university teaching, model building or econometric practice. All these articles are meant to combine personal, occasionally even subjective, reflections on Lucas’s lifework with theoretically and methodologically anchored comprehensive evaluations. The personal touch is most saliently present in Tom Sargent’s account who tells the so far untold story of his friendship with Lucas and how they joined forces in the 1960–1970s in their battle against the then conventional Keynesian way of macroeconomic modeling. Max Gillman, Lucas’s former graduate student at the University of Chicago, embeds his recollections of Lucas’s professorship into describing the various ways the neutrality paper still shapes macroeconomic thinking. In a similar vein, Harald Uhlig, a current faculty member at the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago, offers an insider look into the Chicago milieu and explains how and in what ways it still preserves Lucas’s fingerprints. These articles also include personal recollections and will be valuable resources for historians and methodolo","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"9 2 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80200274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033811
Pierrick Clerc, Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira
ABSTRACT This paper highlights the renewed interest in Lucas’s explanation of the non-neutrality of money put forward in his 1972 article – explanation based on information dispersion and signal extraction problems – by an increasing part of the literature investigating the transmission mechanism of monetary policy shocks. We review the main contributions to this renewal, and illustrate the relationship between this work and Lucas’s own model. We also show that some of the assumptions made by this line of research have been questioned by subsequent developments on the same track, thereby challenging its ability to produce large amounts of monetary non-neutrality and calling for further research.
{"title":"Dispersed information and the non-neutrality of money: fifty years after Lucas, 1972","authors":"Pierrick Clerc, Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2033811","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper highlights the renewed interest in Lucas’s explanation of the non-neutrality of money put forward in his 1972 article – explanation based on information dispersion and signal extraction problems – by an increasing part of the literature investigating the transmission mechanism of monetary policy shocks. We review the main contributions to this renewal, and illustrate the relationship between this work and Lucas’s own model. We also show that some of the assumptions made by this line of research have been questioned by subsequent developments on the same track, thereby challenging its ability to produce large amounts of monetary non-neutrality and calling for further research.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"1098 1","pages":"86 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76732857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032272
H. Uhlig
ABSTRACT This paper is an overview from a personal perspective on the various ways Lucas has shaped today’s economics in general and in terms of ‘Chicago economics’ in particular. In honor of the 50th anniversary of its publication, much focus is given to his 1972 neutrality paper and its impact. I discuss how the paper was a trigger of the subsequent emergence of rational expectations macroeconomics. Further, I touch upon his fundamental contributions to growth theory, asset pricing and the characteristic use of the Bellman equations. After covering these topics, the paper concludes with a portrayal of the Money and Banking Workshop to describe the environment that Lucas established at the Chicago department, and to illustrate his enduring influence on the culture of teaching and discussing macroeconomics at the University of Chicago.
{"title":"The lasting influence of Robert E. Lucas on Chicago economics","authors":"H. Uhlig","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2032272","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper is an overview from a personal perspective on the various ways Lucas has shaped today’s economics in general and in terms of ‘Chicago economics’ in particular. In honor of the 50th anniversary of its publication, much focus is given to his 1972 neutrality paper and its impact. I discuss how the paper was a trigger of the subsequent emergence of rational expectations macroeconomics. Further, I touch upon his fundamental contributions to growth theory, asset pricing and the characteristic use of the Bellman equations. After covering these topics, the paper concludes with a portrayal of the Money and Banking Workshop to describe the environment that Lucas established at the Chicago department, and to illustrate his enduring influence on the culture of teaching and discussing macroeconomics at the University of Chicago.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"3 1","pages":"48 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89522174","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-29DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019818
Max Gillman
ABSTRACT The paper describes how Robert E. Lucas, Jr.’s monetary economies are based on his methodology of using a single general equilibrium dynamic optimization model with microeconomic foundations that can be tested with econometric methods. It shows how, since his 1972 neutrality paper, Phillips curves continue to be a foundation for policy prescription contrary to Lucas’s 1972 results. In support of Lucas’s hypothesis, historical Phillips curves are shown to be idiosyncratic rather than a basis for policy. Using Lucas’s alternative microfounded approaches to money, growth, and asset pricing, the paper then presents Lucas-type extensions for money and growth using a microfounded bank production of exchange credit as an alternative to money, as suggested by Lucas. The paper also shows how this leads to endogenous velocity, money causing inflation, and inflation causing lower economic growth, as in evidence. This implies that Lucas-based low stable inflation policy yields high economic growth and employment.
{"title":"Lucas’s methodological divide in inflation theory: a student’s journey","authors":"Max Gillman","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019818","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper describes how Robert E. Lucas, Jr.’s monetary economies are based on his methodology of using a single general equilibrium dynamic optimization model with microeconomic foundations that can be tested with econometric methods. It shows how, since his 1972 neutrality paper, Phillips curves continue to be a foundation for policy prescription contrary to Lucas’s 1972 results. In support of Lucas’s hypothesis, historical Phillips curves are shown to be idiosyncratic rather than a basis for policy. Using Lucas’s alternative microfounded approaches to money, growth, and asset pricing, the paper then presents Lucas-type extensions for money and growth using a microfounded bank production of exchange credit as an alternative to money, as suggested by Lucas. The paper also shows how this leads to endogenous velocity, money causing inflation, and inflation causing lower economic growth, as in evidence. This implies that Lucas-based low stable inflation policy yields high economic growth and employment.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"98 1","pages":"30 - 47"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77958841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-27DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019963
H. Chao
macro-level causal relations forming the structure in the object-oriented ontologies root in properties of entities — as far as the microfoundations project is concerned, mainly in the properties of agents and other irreducible entities. Thus if one is interested in a (partial) analysis of real causal mechanisms, she needs to postulate some causal entity properties that are active in terms of the relations she wishes to represent. Reality thus cuts in. Macro-structures and hence their representations cannot be independent of the underlying properties of entities, of the properties that carry the causal connections. As a consequence, assumptions de fi ning theoretical agents and other entities must be adequate as for the represented causal connections. Thus the question if a model is capable of providing an adequate causal analysis on the chosen facet of reality boils down to the question of the adequacy of the postulated entity properties. It may be possible that the features of Lucas ’ s highly abstract entities support sound
{"title":"It takes a model to beat a model","authors":"H. Chao","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2019963","url":null,"abstract":"macro-level causal relations forming the structure in the object-oriented ontologies root in properties of entities — as far as the microfoundations project is concerned, mainly in the properties of agents and other irreducible entities. Thus if one is interested in a (partial) analysis of real causal mechanisms, she needs to postulate some causal entity properties that are active in terms of the relations she wishes to represent. Reality thus cuts in. Macro-structures and hence their representations cannot be independent of the underlying properties of entities, of the properties that carry the causal connections. As a consequence, assumptions de fi ning theoretical agents and other entities must be adequate as for the represented causal connections. Thus the question if a model is capable of providing an adequate causal analysis on the chosen facet of reality boils down to the question of the adequacy of the postulated entity properties. It may be possible that the features of Lucas ’ s highly abstract entities support sound","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"47 1","pages":"252 - 256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89668197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：