Posts filed under ‘Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science’
Page and Reference Counts: AER versus AJS
| Peter Klein |
Thanks to Teppo for linking to these interesting graphs. Since 1960, the page count and reference list of the average American Journal of Sociology article have risen dramatically, while those for the American Economic Review have remained about the same. I’d be curious to see these figures for the Academy of Management periodicals as well. What explains these trends? Are sociologists simply more verbose than economists?
Update: Here are some more graphs, this time including ASQ and Management Science, as well as some additional sociology journals. ASQ and MS appear to be somewhere in the middle.
Greif’s Response to Rowley
| Peter Klein |
Avner Greif has written a response to Charles Rowley’s odd claim that Greif “denied Janet Landa her full intellectual property rights with respect to her contributions to the economic analysis of trust and identity.” Public Choice, which published Rowley’s critique, will run the reply. Avner kindly sent me an advance copy and gave me permission to post it here. Full text below the jump.
My $0.02: This is a very effective reply, pointing out that Landa’s and Greif’s explanations for trust are quite different (one based on preferences, the other on beliefs). Avner, perhaps wisely, steers clear of the general epistemological problem: How do you know if scholar A has cited predecessor B “enough”? Expecting A to show he hasn’t unfairly neglected B is asking A to prove a negative. Ultimately, the whole exercise seems petty to me. B’s defenders should focus on elevating B’s reputation, not complaining about A, C, and D’s failure to show the love.
The Curious Commentary on the Citation Practices of Avner Greif
By Avner Greif
August 2009
Forthcoming at Public Choice
Abstract: Rowley (2009) failed, among other faults, to recognize the substantive distinction between the lines of research pursued by Professor Landa and myself. Its claim that I have “expropriated” (p. 276) intellectual property rights from Professor Landa by insufficiently citing her works is vacuous. (more…)
Obama Administration Needs Sociologists
| Peter Klein |
And fewer economists, according to the sociologists interviewed by Inside Higher Ed:
Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, described watching the news in December, as the economy was in a free fall and Barack Obama, as president-elect, was naming people to key positions in his administration. From the social sciences, he said, it was “the same old cast of characters,” and that means economists.
Obama’s election had brought “a sense of possibility,” but “as a sociologist I was pissed off,” he said.
“I have economist envy on a good day and worse things on a bad day,” he said.
I have great respect for my sociologically trained brethren and sistren (cistern?) but am not sure what, exactly, they are asking for. One sociologist thinks economists downplay race and gender — “their supply and demand curves don’t deal with these questions” — which is silly, as much of the analysis of subprimes by labor economists focuses exactly on this. I’m not claiming that sociology (or anthropology or history or psychology) has no useful policy implications, of course, only asking for specifics. (more…)
Statistics Is Sexy
| Peter Klein |
So say Hal Varian, Erik Brynjolfsson, and Peter Orszag, among others quoted in this NY Times piece (via Laura M). “I keep saying that the sexy job in the next 10 years will be statisticians,” says Varian, who now toils away as chief economist at Google, though he’s not far from the hearts of most economics PhD students. Here’s Brynjolfsson: “We’re rapidly entering a world where everything can be monitored and measured. But the big problem is going to be the ability of humans to use, analyze, and make sense of the data.”
The article doesn’t actually say much about the substance of the “new” statistics, but the writer has in mind inductive, very-large-N, data-mining exercises (the kind of analysis not taught to social-science and business-administration graduate students, except perhaps some marketing and finance PhDs). Of course we still make our students take multiple semesters of classical statistics and econometrics.
A Dark Summer Reflection
| Lasse Lien |
Words like science, scientific, university, professor, etc. still command considerable respect in society. Why? I would suggest that the brand equity of “scientific” (and associated concepts) is almost entirely created by the great advances and visible impact of fields such as physics, engineering, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, and other natural sciences. The massive advantages and explanatory power these fields have provided to society have created a status that the social sciences benefit from, but offer (relatively) modest contributions to. If I were in, say, physics or medicine, I think I would be particularly provoked by those strands of the social sciences that seem to want all the benefits of the “brand,” but also insist on the freedom to break all the rules that created it. I would presumably cry out that if you don’t like our brand, build your own, don’t destroy ours. But then again, I might just have a bad case of physics envy.
The New Issue of JEM
| Nicolai Foss |
No doubt a sure sign of impending senility, I take a huge interest in economic methodology, that is, meta-theory as it applies to economics. I serve on the editorial board of the Journal of Economic Methodology and usually enjoy reading the journal. The latest issue of JEM features at least two papers that should be of direct interest to O&M readers, namely Alain Marciano’s “Buchanan’s catallactic critique of Robbins’ definition of economics” (basically a discussion of Buchanan’s famous 1964 presidential address to the Southern Economic Association), and Oliver Williamson’s “Pragmatic methodology: a sketch with applications to transaction cost economics” (pragmatic methodology meaning “keep it simple,” “get it right,” “make it plausible,” and “engage in predictions and empirical testing”). Ah, and for those who take delight in economic controversy there is a rather thorough smashing by Ken Binmore of a recent Deirdre McCloskey book.
Rizzo on “Methodological Exclusivism”
| Peter Klein |
Great anecdotes on contemporary social-science methodology in Mario Rizzo’s post, “The Failure of Macroeconomics” (including the comments). Young economist to senior scholar: “All that is in Adam Smith.” Senior scholar: “Maybe — but until my theory it was not science.” Deepak Lal asks distinguished colleague what should be done about the current crisis. Reply: “I do not consider that an intellectually respectable question.” My own beloved dissertation adviser indulged my quirkier interests, but stated plainly: “Methodology is a swamp.” And of course there’s the famous Ed Leamer analogy.
Here’s Mario’s take:
This is the great problem with economics today: methodological exclusivism (or in my more intemperate moments I call it “methodological fascism”).A young person goes to graduate school. He or she is filled with the excitement of ideas. Today, in particular, some may come with a great desire to understand what has happened in the real world of the bailouts, recessions, stimulus, and so forth. And then academic reality hits.
Formal modeling, axiomatic foundations, tractability, technical power, and topological studies. Shall I get an MA in mathematics? Do I need to take a third semester of macro-econometrics? . . .
It seems pretty clear that what we have is a collective insecurity. If we open the floodgates to methodological inquiry, or even worse, to methodological pluralism, we shall become like political science, or God forefend, like sociology. So let’s keep those with disruptive instincts out of the profession. If this is not possible, then let’s at least keep them out of the good schools.
If you’re feeling subversive, you can browse our methodology/theory of science archive for more forbidden thoughts. (more…)
Will Macroeconomists Solve the Crisis?
| Benito Arruñada |
One may doubt it after observing that Ben Bernanke was one of those believing in the Great Moderation — the claim that macroeconomic volatility had been reduced. Macroeconomic policymaking seems to be as unsafe as firefighting: extinguishing small fires creates the conditions for hell. Shouldn’t macroeconomists learn something from forest management? (For a start: “Fire Must Be Ally in Forest Management.”) Of course, if coupled with an acid-suppressing pill, they could even dare to read Hayek’s “Pretence of Knowledge.”
Corrected Winter Quote
| Peter Klein |
I misquoted Sid Winter in this post. Here’s what he actually said:
“High standards for statistical techniques are tending to crowd out high standards for performance on the central scientific task, causal explanation.”
I was going from memory, then later found the exact wording in my notes. The meaning is the same, but I wanted to correct this for the historical record.
New Directions for SSRN
| Peter Klein |
I see that registered users of SSRN can now post comments on other people’s papers. Maybe this feature has been around for some time but I just noticed it. Is this a small step toward open-source peer review? Or a move toward social networking? (What’s next, the SSRN status update or Super Poke?)
The Professional Strategy of the Early Austrian Economists
| Peter Klein |
O&M, like other niche academic blogs, deals occasionally with the history and sociology of this or that school of economic or management thought. We think often about professional strategy — how to promote our ideas, how to secure financial and institutional support, how to recruit students and fellow-travelers (“groupies,” according to Nicolai), what competing and complementary movements and schools of thought (not to mention rival blogs) are up to, and so on.
Given our close association with the Austrian school, you might be surprised to learn that the founding Austrians were not at all “strategic” in this sense. They held strongly to the view that truth wins out in the long run, so there is no need to build formal institutions or establish a “movement.” This comes out in a passage from Mises’s recently released Memoirs (a new translation of his earlier Notes and Recollections):
It is necessary to correct the misunderstandings that can be called forth by using the expression “Austrian School.” Neither Menger nor Böhm-Bawerk wanted to found a school in the sense customarily used in university circles. They never attempted to turn young students into blind disciples, nor did they, in turn, provide these same students with professorships. They knew that through books and an academic course of instruction they could promote an understanding suited to dealing with economic problems, thus rendering an important service to society. They understood, however, that they could not rear economists. As pioneers and creative thinkers, they recognized that one cannot arrange for scientific progress, nor breed innovation according to plan. They never attempted to propagandize their theories. Truth would prevail of its own accord when man possessed the faculties necessary to perceive it. Using impertinent means to cause people to pay lip service to a teaching was of no use if they lacked the ability to grasp its substance and significance. (more…)
Does Macroeconomic Theory Influence Macroeconomic Policy?
| Peter Klein |
Not really, according to John Wood’s History of Macroeconomic Policy in the United States (Routledge, 2008). As David Wheelock notes in his EH.Net review:
Wood argues that U.S. fiscal and monetary policy have been remarkably consistent over the decades and largely uninfluenced by macroeconomic theory. Economists have rationalized more than influenced policy, Wood contends, and the direction of influence between economic theory and practice is primarily from the latter to the former.
This is of course the classic explanation for the spread of Keynesianism after 1936: rather than proposing a new approach to macroeconomic policy, the General Theory simply rationalized the massive deficit-spending and easy-money policies already in place (and long desired by disreputable economists such as Foster and Catchings).
Sid Winter on Methodology
| Peter Klein |
Overheard at last week’s DRUID conference, in Sid Winter’s discussion of three papers on technology strategy:
“Our near-exclusive focus on statistical significance has distracted us from the main task of scientific explanation: the determination of cause and effect.”
Three cheers to Sid for standing with Menger over Walras!
Sameulson on the Crisis
| Peter Klein |
Is it wrong to pick on a 94-year-old? Mario Rizzo doesn’t think so, and neither do I — if it’s Paul Samuelson, perhaps the most influential economist of the twentieth century and bête noire to Austrians, libertarians, and many other types I hold near and dear. Samuelson, champion of “scientific” economics (i.e., the nineteenth-century physics model so effectively skewered by Phil Mirowski), the neo-Keynesian synthesis, and the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to economics textbooks, now says prediction is impossible and deficit spending unsustainable. What’s next, a startling pronouncement that, contrary to what Samuelson wrote in the pre-1991 editions of his textbook, the Soviet Union was not actually more productive than the US?
Bonus Keynesian material (via Ross Emmett): Did Keynes die of a bad tooth?
World Bank’s “Doing Business” Changing Course
| Benito Arruñada |
Thanks to O&M for the opportunity to join the conversation. I plan to be blogging about some issues discussed in my book.
One of my recent research areas is the cost of business formalization. In particular, I have criticized the World Bank’s Doing Business project for the narrow focus of its “Starting a Business” indicator on reducing the initial costs of incorporating companies (Arruñada, 2007, 2009), which disregards the more important role of business registers as a source of reliable information for judges, which is essential for reducing transaction costs in future business dealings. In many developing countries, registers produce documents that judges do not trust and, therefore, registration does not facilitate impersonal transactions that it should be supporting. Reducing the explicit cost of registers and speeding production of useless paperwork will not help. The priorities of reform policies should therefore be thoroughly reviewed, aiming first for registers to achieve a minimum reliability. (See this discussion).
In April, following continuing pressure by Barney Frank, chairman of the US House Financial Services Committee, the World Bank decided to drop Doing Business’s “Employing Workers Indicator” and develop a new “Worker Protection Indicator” after concluding that the first indicator “does not represent World Bank policy and should not be used as a basis for policy advice or in any country programme documents that outline or evaluate the development strategy or assistance programme for a recipient country” (Aslam, 2009).
In line with my argument about registration, meaningful indicators of institutional quality should be comprehensive of costs and values. Therefore, an indicator of the quality of employment regulation should consider not only workers’ protection but other aspects, such as, most prominently, unemployment rates.
Sociology that We Like
| Nicolai Foss |
Contrary to the conviction perhaps held by the boys over at orgtheory.net, O&M bloggers are not at all hostile to sociology. In fact, we are highly sympathetic to what is sometimes called “analytical sociological theory,” that is, James Coleman, Raymond Boudon, Jon Elster, Peter Abell, Diego Gambetta, Siegwart Lindenberg, Karl-Dieter Opp, and so on. Here is a nice summary of AST, which — we are told — embraces realism and objectivity, is anti-relativist, appreciates formalization and the use of models, is reductionist, eschews bullshit, etc. (Also check out the nice and entirely well taken acerbic treatment of Foucault on p. 7). Now we only need to know: How exactly does AST differ from microeconomics?
Bad to Awful?
| Peter Klein |
Via John Hagel, here’s a Business Week preview of Jim Collins’s new book, How the Mighty Fall, and How Some Companies Never Give In, a profile of once-successful firms that go under. Will the new book avoid the core methodological fallacy that doomed Collins’s earlier work? Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear so:
At our research lab [sic], we’d already been discussing the possibility of a project on corporate decline, in part because some of the great companies we’d profiled in the books Good to Great and Built to Last had subsequently lost their positions of prominence. On one level this fact didn’t cause much angst; just because a company falls doesn’t invalidate what we can learn by studying that company when it was at its historical best.
True, but without some mechanism for distinguishing treatment and control, such an investigation can never be anything more than a collection of interesting vignettes. Collins and his team seem unable to grasp the fundamental scientific principle of cause and effect. Just because a particular behavior corresponds to a particular outcome (be it success or failure), there is no way to know if that behavior contributed to the outcome, without studying individuals or organizations that exhibited the same behavior but experienced a different outcome.
I eagerly await Phil Rosenzweig’s next book: The Horns-and-Pitchfork Effect.
Pomo Periscope XVIII: “The French Don’t Care What You Actually Say as Long as You Pronounce It Correctly”
| Nicolai Foss |
This line from My Fair Lady seems to be an accurate summing-up of the emphasis on rhetorics, conversation etc., a branch of pomo, in certain quarters in economic methodology and related fields and disciplines. Or, so Robert Solow argues in a review in the latest issue of the always-interesting Journal of Economic Methodology of Arjo Klamer’s Speaking of Economics; How to Get Into the Conversation (here is a site dedicated to the book, and here is another review).
Essentially, Solow criticizes those who engage in the conversation talk for not adding any substantive insights on the level of meta-theory (whether positive or normative). “I have real doubts,” he says about the utility of describing the practice of academic economics as a ‘conversation’ or a bunch of simultaneous conversations. . . . My claim is that it does not advance the serious understanding of what academic economists are up to, and its relation to what the economy is up to” (p. 94). He sums up by saying that “In the end, I did not find find the proposed connection between postmodernism and contemporary economics convincing. Maybe theories with little or no application, theories about chaos and complex systems, and theories that leave practical people clueless about the economy (those are all Klamer’s words) have something to do with the architecture of Frank Gehry or the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, but the connection needs work” (p. 95). It seems so.
Macroeconomics Quote of the Day
| Peter Klein |
From Kenneth Boulding’s review essay on Samuelson’s Foundations, published in the JPE in 1948:
[I]t is a question of acute importance for economics as to why the macroeconomics predictions of the mathematical economists have been on the whole less successful than the hunches of the mathematically unwashed. The answer seems to be that when we write, for instance, “let i, Y, and I stand, respectively, for the interest rate, income, and investment,” we stand committed to the assumption that the internal structures of these aggregates or averages are not important for the problem in hand. In fact, of course, they may be very important, and no amount of subsequent mathematical analysis of the variables can overcome the fatal defect of their heterogeneity.
More on heterogeneity in macroeconomics here.
IRBs Gone Wild
| Peter Klein |
We’ve noted before the strange behavior of university Institutional Review Boards. My own campus has a particularly prickly IRB, the result of an unpleasant incident a few years back involving the medical school. So, even social-science researchers must receive IRB training and have individual research projects — yes, every research project that involves “human subjects,” which includes research using secondary data — approved by the campus IRB.
My certification expired recently and I took an online test today to be re-certified. Some of you may find the questions interesting. Here is a selection. Keep in mind these are questions for an economist wishing to do research in economics and management, not for a pharmacologist or epidemiologist. (more…)
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments