It's just a feeling: why economic models do not explain

Alexandrova, Anna; Northcott, Robert

doi:10.1080/1350178x.2013.828873

Cited by 40 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It could be argued that if the conditions under which the causes identified in the model make a difference are identified through detailed historical analysis, for example, then it is not the model that does the explaining, but the detailed historical analysis. This is the position Alexandrova and Northcott (2013) seem to favor in regarding models as open formulas, in other words as simple heuristics for the construction of templates to be filled in by means of empirical investigation (see also Alexandrova 2008). The issue under contention here pertains to the model's failure to provide a full specification of the causal hypothesis.…”

Section: Empirical Strategies Of Model Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

Marchionni

2017

Disputatio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether the idealized models of theoretical economics are explanatory has been the subject of intense philosophical debate. It is sometimes presupposed that either a model provides the actual explanation or it does not provide an explanation at all. Yet, two sets of issues are relevant to the evaluation of model-based explanation: what conditions should a model satisfy in order to count as explanatory and does the model satisfy those conditions. My aim in this paper is to unpack this distinction and show that separating the first set of issues from the second is crucial to an accurate diagnosis of the distinctive challenges that economic models pose. Along the way I sketch a view of model-based explanation in economics that focuses on the role that non-empirical and empirical strategies play in increasing confidence in the adequacy of a given model-based explanation.

show abstract

Section: Empirical Strategies Of Model Verificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

Marchionni

2017

Disputatio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critics of standard models would argue that the latter is often characteristic of economic modeling (see, e.g. Alexandrova & Northcott 2013;Reiss 2012). Indeed, evidence from behavioral economics, and to some extent from neuro-economics, suggests in many domains behavior predictably goes against standard predictions.…”

Section: R83 the Prospect Of A Naturalized Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Folk-economic beliefs as “evidential fiction”: Putting the economic public discourse back on track

Acerbi

Sacco

2018

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Folk-economic beliefs may be regarded as “evidential fictions” that exploit the natural tendency of human cognition to organize itself in narrative form. Narrative counter-arguments are likely more effective than logical debunking. The challenge is to convey sound economic reasoning in narratively conspicuous forms – an opportunity for economics to rethink its role and agency in public discourse, in the spirit of its old classics.

show abstract

“…Thus, Alexandrova and Northcott (2013) argue that in principle, models can be successful at isolating the capacities that occur in the target system. However, they state that in practice this does not happen in economics (and in some biology).…”

Section: The Literature On Models and Theory In The Philosophy Of Ecomentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal theories, models and evidence in economics—some reflections from the natural sciences

Joffe

2017

Cogent Economics & Finance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models have been extensively analysed in economic methodology, notably their degree of ability to provide explanations. This paper takes a complementary, comparative approach, examining theory development in the natural sciences. Examples show how diverse types of evidence combine with causal hypotheses to generate empirically based causal theories-a cumulative process occurring over a long timescale. Models are typically nested within this broader theory. This could be a good model for research in economics, providing a methodology that ensures good correspondence with the target system-especially as economics research is largely empirical, and has effective methods for causal inference. This paper analyses the key features of three successful theories in the natural sciences, and draws out some lessons that may be useful to economists. Some examples of good practice in economics are noted, e.g. involving money and banking, and the growth of the state. On the other hand, the widespread pre-crisis use of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models that ignored the financial sector raises the question, how to realise what has been omitted? Nesting models in an empirically based causal theory could solve this. Furthermore, some phenomena have clear explanations, but mainstream theory obscures them, as with the Lucas puzzle about the

show abstract

It's just a feeling: why economic models do not explain

Cited by 40 publications

References 9 publications

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

What is the Problem with Model-based Explanation in Economics?

Folk-economic beliefs as “evidential fiction”: Putting the economic public discourse back on track

Causal theories, models and evidence in economics—some reflections from the natural sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About