IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v35y2011i2p423-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time to reject the privileging of economic theory over empirical evidence? A reply to Lawson

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Juselius

Abstract

The present financial and economic crisis has revealed a systemic failure of academic economics and emphasised the need to re-think how to model economic phenomena. Tony Lawson seems concerned that critics of standard models now will fill academic journals with contributions that make the same methodological mistakes, albeit in a slightly different guise. In particular, he is rather sceptical of the usefulness of mathematical statistical models, such as the Cointegrated VAR model, as a way of learning about economic mechanisms. In this paper I discuss whether this is a relevant claim and argue that it is likely to be based on a misunderstanding of what a proper statistical analysis is and can offer. In particular, I argue that the strong evidence of (near) unit roots and (structural) breaks in economic variables suggests that standard economic models need to be modified or changed to incorporate these strong features of the data. Furthermore, I argue that a strong empirical methodology that allows data to speak freely about economic mechanisms, such as the CVAR, would ensure that important signals in the data are not silenced by prior restrictions. Adequately applied such models would provide us with an early warning system signalling when the economy is moving seriously out of equilibrium. Copyright The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Juselius, 2011. "Time to reject the privileging of economic theory over empirical evidence? A reply to Lawson," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(2), pages 423-436.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:35:y:2011:i:2:p:423-436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beq024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katarina Juselius, 2011. "On the Role of Theory and Evidence in Macroeconomics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Katarina Juselius, 2021. "Searching for a Theory That Fits the Data: A Personal Research Odyssey," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Michael Joffe, 2017. "Causal theories, models and evidence in economics—some reflections from the natural sciences," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1280983-128, January.
    4. Guzmán, Gabriel & Frasser, Cristian, 2017. "La naturaleza de las instituciones. El debate actual [The nature of institutions. The current debate]," MPRA Paper 117861, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Jun 2017.
    5. Ding Chen & Simon Deakin, 2014. "On Heaven's Lathe: State, Rule of Law, & Economic Development," Working Papers wp464, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    6. Juselius, Katarina & Dimelis, Sophia, 2019. "The Greek crisis: A story of self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-22.
    7. Deakin, Simon, 2013. "The legal theory of finance: Implications for methodology and empirical research," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 338-342.
    8. John Buchanan & Dominic Heesang Chai & Simon Deakin, 2013. "Empirical Analysis of Legal Institutions and Institutional Change: Multiple-Methods Approaches and their Application to Corporate Governance Research," Working Papers wp445, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:35:y:2011:i:2:p:423-436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.