Posts filed under ‘Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science’
New Issue of EJPE
| Peter Klein |
The new issue of the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics has several interesting items. Here’s Sen on Adam Smith:
In ethics, Smith’s concept of an impartial spectator who is able to view our situation from a critical distance has much to contribute to a fuller understanding of the requirements of justice, particularly through an understanding of impartiality as going beyond the interests and concerns of a local contracting group. Smith’s open, realization-focussed and comparative approach to evaluation contrasts with what I call the “transcendental institutionalism” popular in contemporary political philosophy and associated particularly with the work of John Rawls.
An essay on Gerard Debreu’s methodology looks promising, along with several of the book reviews. Check it out!
Interesting Paper on Research Design
| Peter Klein |
Ed Leamer famously argued, back in 1983, that empirical economists should do more sensitivity analysis. A new NBER paper by Joshua Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke says that econometric practice has indeed gotten much better, not because of sensitivity analysis, but because of a new focus on research design. “[T]he credibility revolution in empirical work can be traced to the rise of a design-based approach that emphasizes the identification of causal effects. Design-based studies typically feature either real or natural experiments and are distinguished by their prima facie credibility and by the attention investigators devote to making the case for a causal interpretation of the findings their designs generate.” They are clearly right that identification has become a Really Big Deal (choosing a dissertation topic in economics is sometimes referred to these days as “the search for a good instrument”). But natural experiments and instrumental variables have their own potential problems as well. Perhaps Verstehen can still play a role.
Google Public Data Explorer
| Peter Klein |
How long before we are doing all our empirical research on Google?
You can bet that commercial and subscription-based academic data providers like Thompson Financial, CRSP, Compustat, Global Insight, etc. are paying close attention. (BTW I still think the World Freedom Atlas is cooler.)
Mizzou Seminar on Evolutionary Models in Economics and Organization Theory
| Peter Klein |
Thanks largely to the organizing efforts of my colleague and former O&M guest blogger Randy Westgren, a group here at Missouri is examining evolutionary models in economics and organization theory. The centerpiece is a philosophy of science seminar directed by André Ariew, a leading American scholar in the philosophy of biology, especially Darwin and evolutionary theory.
I’ll let Randy explain:
The course is PHL 9830. Normally it is a traditional philosophy of science seminar aimed at graduate students in the department of philosophy, but we hijacked it to examine a specific theme. The subject focus is evolutionary theory applied to biology, economics, and management. There are three general types of questions we ask, (a) clarification, (b) conceptual, and (c) general philosophy of science. (more…)
Do Social Scientists Misuse the Term “Natural Experiment”?
| Peter Klein |
Richard Nielsen thinks so:
I’m on board with using the language of experiments, but I’ve also seen more than a few recent papers framed as “natural experiments” that are really just observational studies with no particular claim to special status. The spread of experimental language into observational studies may have downsides as well as benefits.
Until recently, I basically assumed that when people said they had a natural experiment, what they really meant was that they had a credible instrument: a variable that breaks the link between treatment assignment and the potential outcomes for some or all of the units. However, the lead [Political Analysis] article places difference-in-differences, regression discontinuity, and matching methods under the tent of natural experiments. While I like (and use) these techniques and find them compelling, only some of them explicitly rely on an IV-type argument. Maybe I have more to learn.
The problem with any randomization that isn’t controlled by the researcher is that extreme skeptics like me can then try to spin complicated stories about how confounding could occur.
Nielson is talking about political-science research, but economists and management scholars also use the term “natural experiment” more loosely (e.g., to include difference-in-differences models). But Nielson (if I understand him correctly) seems to be mixing the specific method of analyzing the natural experiment with the presence or absence of a credible instrument. In other words, he’s concerned that people are using the term “natural experiment” to mean “any situation in which variation is introduced by nature,” rather than “a situation in which I can tell a convincing story about identification.” I don’t think economists are guilty of using it in the former way. As Angrist and Krueger put it, “A common criticism of the natural experiments approach to instrumental variables is that it does not spell out fully the underlying theoretical relationships. . . . [But] there is usually a well-developed story or model motivating the choice of instruments.” And if this story is persuasive, then discontinuity analysis or differences-in-difference modeling should be fine. Right?
Stuck on the Methodological Hamster Wheel
| Craig Pirrong |
I’ve read John Cassidy’s New Yorker article (not available online) in which he described his journey to the freshwater provinces in his attempt to see whether the financial crisis had caused Chicago economists to reject their reactionary views. (With one exception, the answer is blessedly “no.”) I’ve also read his paean to Pigou in the WSJ. So I pretty much knew what to expect when I picked up his How Markets Fail. Let’s say I wasn’t disappointed, in the sense that my very low expectations were met.
The book is a very conventional, Stiglitz-esque critique of market economics and those who defend markets. The latter are always described with Homer-esque modifiers, just so you’ll know that they [we!] are retrograde knuckle draggers. (more…)
A Tale of Two Papers, or, Humpty Dumpty Writes About Exchanges
| Craig Pirrong |
The American Economic Association/American Finance Association Meetings are just about over. I made a quick trip there to comment on a paper. Upon returning home, I downloaded a couple of the papers presented that seemed of interest. Good call on one, bad call on the other.
The bad one is “Centralized versus Over The Counter Markets” by Viral Acharya of LBS and NYU, and Alberto Bisin of NYU. Although the motivation of the paper is admirable, the execution is execrable, and is representative of a lot of what is wrong in the profession.
The motivation is to compare the efficiencies of alternative ways of organizing derivatives trades: centralized exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) markets. Great. Big question. I’ve written a lot about it, and would be very interested in seeing other takes thoughtful on the subject.
The paper concludes that organized exchanges are (constrained) first best efficient, and more efficient than OTC markets. A quick review of the paper makes it clear, however, that they’ve rigged the game to produce that result. (more…)
Studying Entrepreneurs
| Peter Klein |
Great opening from Robert Whaples’s EH.Net review of T.J. Stiles, The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt (Knopf, 2009):
Economists have always had a hard time dealing with entrepreneurs — as individuals and in the aggregate. We sort of know what entrepreneurship is and that it can have a profound impact on economic performance, but it’s usually just too difficult to model and measure. What we do not understand, we simply ignore and leave to others. After all, we are firm believers in comparative advantage and studying entrepreneurship — even if it is economically important — doesn’t seem to be our comparative advantage. In the view of most economic historians, it is the rules of the game — the incentives and the institutions — that really matter, not the players. American economic history has been cast as the story of millions of diligent and clever beavers working away and transforming the landscape. Take one of them away and nothing of great importance will really change. (In fact, most of us seem to believe that if you take away an entire technological complex, like the railroads, little of much importance would really change.)
Why, then, should economic historians study the careers of entrepreneurs? Not all of us should. But for some, the study of entrepreneurs will illuminate the past and the present — and put life into our cliometric narrative.
Joe Salerno has a valuable treatment of this problem in his 2008 paper “The Entrepreneur: Real and Imagined.”
Felin and Foss Best Paper Award
| Peter Klein |
Congratulations to Nicolai and Teppo Felin for winning this year’s SO!WHAT Award for Scholarly Contribution for their 2005 paper “Strategic Organization: A Field in Search of Micro-Foundations” (ungated version). These are given by the journal Strategic Organization for the best paper published five years earlier (i.e., after some seasoning, based on impact as well as substance and originality). Look here (about half-way down the page) for praise from Jay Barney and Bruce Kogut. Way to go, guys!
Here are some prior O&M posts on microfoundations.
The Age of Constructivism
| Craig Pirrong |
I am reading Vernon Smith’s Rationality in Economics. I highly, highly recommend it. Largely a homage to Hayek, it explores the implications of Hayek’s distinction between constructivist rationality and what Smith relabels ecological rationality. It contains a wealth of methodological and substantive insights. Smith is knowledgeable and thoughtful. He is almost John Stuart Mill-like in his even handed and fair characterizations of competing views, even those he disagrees with. He integrates experimental economics, game theory, institutional economics, neoclassical economics, neurology, and much, much more.
What fascinates Smith is the ineffable process by which an ecologically rational order emerges from the actions of myriad imperfectly informed and incompletely rational (in the constructivist sense) individuals. This process — a sort of economic transubstantiation — is the most fascinating economic mystery. It is also, alas, one that has received far too little attention from economists whose formal tools permit them to analyze (constructively) equilibrium, but which are virtually powerless to analyze the process of getting there; the proverbial drunks looking for their keys under the lamppost.
We live in an era of constructivism regnant. In health care and finance, especially, constructivist schemes will reshape for better or worse — and almost certainly worse — vast swathes of the American economy. What’s more troubling still, this is constructivism refracted through the flawed lens of politics and public choice. Appreciation of the emergent order, the ecologically rational, is sadly rare. Vernon Smith appreciates it, deeply, with an almost religious sense of awe. Read his book and you will appreciate it too.
Andrew Gelman’s Meta-Lesson
| Peter Klein |
“Microeconomics ain’t easy, and don’t let a regression — or division by a baseline — be a substitute for clear thought.” Steve Levitt is the target. Why does it take a statistics professor to remind economists of such an obvious truth?
I Wish I’d Written That
| Peter Klein |
Arnold Kling on PAS:
[P]rior to Samuelson’s formalization in economics, there were a lot of papers published that lacked clarity and insight. Now that formalization dominates, we also see a lot of papers that lack clarity and insight. If you compare the most insightful mathematical papers with the average non-mathematical papers, math wins. But one can also run the comparison the other way and reach the opposite conclusion.
Rejecta Mathematica
| Peter Klein |
Rejecta Mathematica is an open-access journal featuring papers rejected by peer-reviewed mathematics journals. Each article includes an author’s statement describing the peer-review experience and explaining why the paper shouldn’t have been rejected. Great concept! (Link from Sheen Levine via Konstantina Kiousis.)
I eagerly await the first issues of Rejecta Economica and Rejecta Stratetgica.
Modest, Slow, Molecular, Definitive
| Peter Klein |
In an oft-cited passage from The Mechanisms of Governance (1996), Williamson describes the research program of transaction cost economics this way:
Transaction cost economics (1) eschews intuitive notions of complexity and asks what the dimensions are on which transactions differ that present differential hazards. It further (2) asks what the attributes are on which governance structures differ that have hazard mitigation consequences. And it (3) asks what main purposes are served by economic organization. Because, moreover, contracting takes place over time, transaction cost economics (4) inquires into the intertemporal transformations that contracts and organization undergo. Also, in order to establish better why governance structures differ in discrete structural ways, it (5) asks why one form of organization (e.g., hierarchy) is unable to replicate the mechanisms found to be efficacious in another (e.g., the market). The object is to implement this microanalytic program, this interdisciplinary joinder of law, economics, and organization, in a “modest, slow, molecular, definitive” way.
A footnote explains the origins of the phrase “modest, slow, molecular, definitive,” tracing them to a (secondhand) quotation from Charles Péguy. Here’s the footnote:
The full quotation (source unknown) reads:
“The longer I live, citizen. . .” — this is the way the great passage in Peguy begins, words I once loved to say (I had them almost memorized) — “The longer I live, citizen, the less I believe in the efficiency of sudden illuminations that are not accompanied or supported by serious work, the less I believe in the efficiency of conversion, extraordinary, sudden and serious, in the efficiency of sudden passions, and the more I believe in the efficiency of modest, slow, molecular, definitive work. The longer I ive the less I believe in the efficiency of an extraordinary sudden social revolution, improvised, marvelous, with or without guns and impersonal dictatorship — and the more I believe in the efficiency of modest, slow, molecular, definitive work.”
Well, we are nothing if not pedantic here at O&M, and in that spirit, I share (with permission) a note from my colleague and former guest blogger Randy Westgren, written to Williamson in January 2007, explaining that the anonymous source has botched the Péguy quotation. Here’s Randy:
After a long search, I found the quote from Péguy that you cite in footnote nine of the Prologue of The Mechanisms of Governance and noted again in footnote eleven of the first chapter. I was not able to find the secondary quote that is printed in the footnote, but I did find the original passage from Péguy. I have been searching for this since The Mechanisms was published, because I could not fathom how Charles Péguy could have denounced sudden, wondrous conversion and sudden, extraordinary social revolution when he was (1) a famously devout Catholic; a mystic whose poetry includes an exceptional hommage to Joan of Arc, and (2) a famously ardent socialist who believed strongly in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. In fact, after giving up on the Catholicism of his youth while at the École Normale Supérieure, he returned to his faith in the middle of the first decade of the century, when he was in his early 30s. He was slain in the first battle of the Marne in 1914 at the age of 41. (more…)
The Igon Value of Cognitive Dissonance
| Dick Langlois |
Some of you may have seen Steven Pinker’s review of Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book in the New York Times this weekend. Pinker praises Gladwell’s writing and his instinct for interesting topics, but skewers him for his bad grasp of the underlying science of what he writes about, especially statistics. In Pinker’s view, Gladwell is in the end a character from one of his own essays, “a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures.” One blunder seems to epitomize Pinker’s assessment: Gladwell’s report on an expert who talks of “igon values” instead of eigenvalues. Pinker call this the igon value effect.
As I read this, I thought back to a department seminar I had attended a couple of days earlier. Keith Chen from Yale gave one of the most dazzling presentations I’ve heard in a long time. He basically demolished 45 years of experimental results in social psychology that claim to have discovered cognitive dissonance in choices. According to this literature, it is among the best-documented results in psychology that people change their preferences after making a choice so as to rationalize the choice and make themselves feel better about their decision. Chen argues — persuasively — that essentially all these results are statistical artifacts. At a much more sophisticated level, social psychologists have fallen victim to the igon value effect. Here is the abstract of a working paper, though it gives only a hint of how clever this research is.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential theories in social psychology, and its oldest experiential realization is choice-induced dissonance. Since 1956, dissonance theorists have claimed that people rationalize past choices by devaluing rejected alternatives and upgrading chosen ones, an effect known as the spreading of preferences. Here, I show that every study which has tested this suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw. Specifically, these studies (and the free-choice methodology they employ) implicitly assume that before choices are made, a subject’s preferences can be measured perfectly, i.e. with infinite precision, and under-appreciate that a subject’s choices reflect their preferences. Because of this, existing methods will mistakenly identify cognitive dissonance when there is none. This problem survives all controls present in the literature, including control groups, high and low dissonance conditions, and comparisons of dissonance across cultures or affirmation levels. The bias this problem produces can be fixed, and correctly interpreted several prominent studies actually reject the presence of choice-induced dissonance in their subjects. This suggests that mere choice may not be enough to induce rationalization, a reversal that may significantly change the way we think about cognitive dissonance as a whole.
Chen was also written up in the New York Times last year.
Oh, and by the way, that was our second seminar of the day. Earlier we listened to Bob Lucas, whom the grad students brought in to give a major lecture. (First time I had met him.) He talked about his paper in the inaugural issue of the new AEA macro journal: “Trade and the Diffusion of the Industrial Revolution.” (There wasn’t actually much trade in it.) Lucas and I had a nice conversation at lunch about Jane Jacobs, who we agreed was fantastic. “She was a theorist!” was Lucas’s assessment. High praise.
Pomo Periscope XIX: Leiter on Foucault
| Nicolai Foss |
Here is a nice discussion of Foucault by UChicago Law School professor Brian Leiter. It is not a smashing per se, but rather a critical discussion that indicates a central flaw in Foucault’s philosophy. Leiter points to Foucault’s well known discussion of the “pretence” of the “human sciences,” something Foucault seems to explain on the basis of the “influence of economic, political, and moral considerations on their development” (Leiter, p. 16). As Leiter points out, however,
[I]t is now surely a familiar point in post-Kuhnian philosophy of science that the influence of social and historical factors might be compatible with the epistemically special standing of the sciences as long as we can show that epistemically reliable factors are still central to explaining the claims of those sciences. And that possibility is potentially fatal to Foucault‟s critique. For recall that central to Foucault‟s critique is the role that the epistemic pretensions of the sciences play in a structure of practical reasoning which leads agents concerned with their flourishing to become the agents of their own oppression. And the crucial bit of “pretense” is, as we noted earlier, that the human sciences illuminate the truth about how (normal) human beings flourish in virtue of adhering to the epistemic strictures and methodologies of the natural sciences. Recall also that Foucault, unlike Nietzsche, does not contest the practical authority of truth (i.e., the claim of the truth to determine what ought to be done); he rather denies that the claims in question are true or have the epistemic warrant that we would expect true claims to have. So the entire Foucauldian project of liberation turns on the epistemic status of the claims of the human sciences. And on this central point, Foucault has, surprisingly, almost nothing to say beyond raising “suspicion.”
Terence Hutchison Special Issue
| Nicolai Foss |
It is a sad fact that I spent a considerable part of my early 20s browsing the pages of the major economics journals of the interwar period. I was particularly interested in what was then called the “monetary theory of the trade cycle” and the role of expectations in the business cycle (Myrdal, Lindahl, Hawtrey, Robertson — and of course Hayek and his many followers and conversants, such as Lachman, Kaldor, and various UK Labour Party economists who until the advent of Keynes’ GT were surprisingly bent on Hayekian business cycle theory. (Here is one of the results of that work). My forays led to the “discovery” of Terence Hutchison’s 1937 paper, “Expectation and Rational Conduct,” in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, a paper that, while over the top in a number of ways, is also an early anticipation of rational expectations and the problems of RE.
Hutchison (1912-2007) is nowadays best known as an economic methodologist, perhaps the first explicit proponent of logical positivism and later Popper’s falsificationism. His 1938 book, The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory, is often taken as a response to Lionel Robbins’ strongly Austrian-influenced Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science(1932/1935). Hutchison later engaged in a debate with Fritz Machlup, and Hayek buffs will know that Hutchison coined the notion of “Hayek I” and “Hayek II” (based on Hayek’s acceptance of Misesian praxeology).
The latest issue of the always-interesting Journal of Economic Methodology features a special issue symposium on Hutchison. Among the highlights is the publication of a hitherto unpublished, semi-autobiographical essay by Hutchison, and the reproduction by Bruce Caldwell of some revealing letters by Hayek and Hutchison (Hayek did not agree with Hutchison’s interpretation of his changes in the 1930s).
Economic Methodology in Erkenntnis
| Nicolai Foss |
Economic methodology, or, meta-theoretical discussion of (and in) economics, has gone significantly beyond with theme that many practicing economists associate with the field, namely the realism-of-assumptions theme prompted by Friedman’s famous 1953 essay, “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” Of course that theme is by no means unimportant, and it has, of course, resurfaced under the impact of the financial crisis.
However, the main themes of the current economic methodology discussion have shifted from the role of assumptions to economic models in their entirety. Two main perspectives are sometimes distinguished, namely the “isolationists” who literally see economic models as simplified redescriptions of the mechanisms and causal factors of the real world, and the “fictionalists” who, as the name indicate, ascribe much less realism to models and think of them as purely mental laboratories that may still, however, allow for certain inferences to the real world.
The January 2009 issue of Erkenntnis: An International Journal of Analytical Philosophy is a special issue, edited by Till Grüne-Yanoff, dedicated to exploring these two positions, and entitled “Economic Models as Credible Worlds or as Isolating Tools?” Among the heavyweight contributors are Robert Sugden, Uskali Mäki, and Nancy Cartwright. I particularly liked Mäki’s argument that the two positions are in actually very close rather than opposed. Highly recommended for those who want to acquaint themselves with frontier issues in economic methodology.
Sampling on the Dependent Variable: French Peasant Edition
| Peter Klein |
A useful example of the methodological flaw that plagues the “great companies” and “great leaders” literature in management, from Graham Robb’s excellent The Discovery of France (Norton, 2007):
[N]early every autobiographical account of ordinary life in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France comes from the early chapters of memoirs written by exceptional men who rose through the ranks of the army or the Church, woo wrote their way to fame or who were plucked from obscurity by a patron, a lover or, eventually, an electorate. Few men and even fewer women had the means or the desire to write a book on “How I failed to overcome my humble origins.” Apart from the countless riches-to-riches tales written by aristocrats, almost all the lives that we know about follow the same untypical upward trend: the farmer’s son Restif de la Bretonne, the cutler’s son Diderot, the watchmaker’s son Rousseau, the Corsican cadet Napoleone Buonaparte.
These spectacular success are more typical of long-term trends than of individual lives. Categorical terms like “peasants,” “artisans,” and “the poor” reduce the majority of the population to smudges in a crowd scene that no degree of magnification could resolve into a group of faces. They suggest a large and luckless contingent that filled in the background of important events and participated in the nation’s historical development by suffering and engaging in a semblance of economic activity.
Likewise, business and entrepreneurial strategies can be understood by studying not only firms that tried them and succeeded, but also those that used the same strategies and failed. Reducing the majority of companies to smudges in an industry-wide or economy-wide crowd scene tells us little about what does and doesn’t work.
Making and Unmaking Economic Orders
| Dick Langlois |
The new issue of the online journal Capitalism and Society has a number of articles that should interest readers of this blog. Each is probably deserving of its own post. (Ah, but time prohibits.)
Jon Elster has a piece called “Excessive Ambitions” that criticizes not only mainstream rational-choice models (as we would expect from Elster) but also modeling in general. Roman Frydman and Michael Goldberg have a piece that applies something like Leijonhufvud’s “corridor” to risk regulation: when swings of asset values are small, government should stay out, since such swings are actually beneficial; but when asset prices get too far from “underlying values,” government regulation is called for.
My favorite paper is by Thorbjørn Knudsen and Richard Swedberg. Here’s the abstract:
This is a theoretical paper in which we attempt to present an economic and sociological theory of entrepreneurship. We start from Schumpeter’s idea in Theory of Economic Development that the economy can be conceptualized as a combination and innovations as new combinations. Schumpeter also spoke of resistance to entrepreneurship. By linking the ideas of combination and resistance, we are in a position to suggest a theory of capitalist entrepreneurship. An existing combination, we propose, can be understood as a social formation with its own cohesion and resistance — what may be called an economic order. Actors know how to act; and profit is low and even in these orders. Entrepreneurship, in contrast, breaks them up by creating new ways of doing things and, in doing so, produces entrepreneurial profit. This profit inspires imitators until a new order for how to do things has been established; and profit has become low and even once more. Entrepreneurship is defined as the act of creating a new combination that ends one economic order and clears the way for a new one. The implications of this approach for a number of topics related to entrepreneurship are also discussed.
This has some affinities to arguments I have made in the past. I am thanked in the acknowledgements, presumably for conversations that Richard and I had at a Schumpeter conference at Harvard last year; but I’m not cited. (Assume sad-faced emoticon here.)
I will talk about the fourth paper in the issue soon in a separate post.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments