Discussion Tuesday
Via CPW we have this gem of a discussion point. Once again, remember that these are points for discussion – I am not saying I agree or disagree with them.
Would economics, and economists, enjoy a better reputation and be more influential if they jettisoned most of macro-economics as being pseudoscience (as measured by its predictive power)
Predictive power = (almost) O
Descriptive power (ie as a branch of history) = still considerable
There is already a separate discipline called Economic History, although the separation of Economics and Economic History has been controversial.
Indeed, and I guess my comment was a push to recombine them. In most NZ universities that would actually mean resuscitating Economic History first, since next to none is now taught.
The economic history point is a really interesting one – I might set up some of the later Discussion Tuesdays (June/July) to be on that.
One question I have is, how much has economic history died vs how much has economic history transformed into econometrics.
It could just be me, but I see economic history as much broader than just econometrics. Econometrics can be a part of economic history, but economic history also blends applied economics with statistics, history and politics. If you were studying economic history, you would be just as interested in political decisions and social changes in society as quantitative analysis.
Indeed, I agree it is broader – I just think the comparison is a neat place to start to get a feeling around what has happened.
For example, prior to the decline of economic history departments was the decline of a lot of “normative” economics – in what way is that related, and what was that due to? Would be interesting in reading a history of economics book that focused on the way economics “questions” changed – as that should capture why specific elements faded and rose to prominence. Think it would give us insight into whether the questions we are asking are the right ones, or at least what purpose they are right for.
That would be a very interesting read. Public Choice Theory is an offshoot of economics that has headed back the other way, towards politics and normative purposes.
There does seem to be a disconnect between how economics is taught and the reality that most economic students will end up working for organisations that have normative purposes.
It is interesting to see the popularity of Philosophy, Politics and Economics degrees. Maybe there is still a place for disciplines like Economic History and Political Economy.
Is the real issue that the current dominant theoretical approach within the discipline, Neoclassical Economics, has poor predictive power? Theoretical approaches within political science, for example, can have poor predictive power, but this does not invalidate the discipline as a whole. Disciplines can evolve and adapt, while theoretical approaches tend to be more static. If approaches change considerably, they become new approaches.
The key issue I disagree with in the quote is equating “predictive power” in a narrow sense with scientific. The Duhem-Quine thesis tells us this can be a bit of a pain, especially when many of the auxiliary hypotheses are unobservable – an extremely important issue for macroeconomics in particular.