IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/stagec/46658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theory testing (hypothesis testing) in agricultural economics

Author

Listed:
  • Meszaros, Sandor

Abstract

According to Karl Popper, economics and agricultural economics should be deemed scientific if the theories (hypotheses) are subject to strict tests. The testing of agro-economic theories goes back 50 years in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan, and these methods are becoming increasingly part of educational research methodology. In fact, the author of this paper teaches this very subject at Debrecen University, and for this reason has endeavoured to provide an overview on current trends in this field. The present overview first discusses the role of testing in the research process (cognition), and then analyses the various classification methods (types) of testing. It deals in detail with the application of the (microeconomic) production-theory in agriculture and discusses the potential and limits for measuring scientific progress in this field. Finally it draws conclusions regarding future trends.

Suggested Citation

  • Meszaros, Sandor, 2008. "Theory testing (hypothesis testing) in agricultural economics," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 107, pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:stagec:46658
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.46658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/46658/files/No.107_1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.46658?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reziti, Ioanna & Ozanne, Adam, 1999. "Testing Regularity Properties in Static and Dynamic Duality Models: The Case of Greek Agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 26(4), pages 461-477, December.
    2. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
    3. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2004. "Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(2), pages 331-358, August.
    4. Nerlove, Marc & Bessler, David A., 2001. "Expectations, information and dynamics," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 155-206, Elsevier.
    5. Paris, Quirino, 2005. "Price-Induced Technical Progress in 80 years of U.S. Agriculture," Working Papers 11943, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Ben D. MacArthur & Richard O. C. Oreffo, 2005. "Bridging the gap," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7021), pages 19-19, January.
    7. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    8. Michael Caputo & Quirino Paris, 2005. "An Atemporal Microeconomic Theory and an Empirical Test of Price-Induced Technical Progress," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 259-281, November.
    9. Paruolo, Paolo, 2005. "Automated Inference And The Future Of Econometrics: A Comment," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 78-84, February.
    10. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. & Magnus, Jan R., 1995. "On tests and significance in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 5-24, May.
    11. Ramon E. Lopez, 1984. "Estimating Substitution and Expansion Effects Using a Profit Function Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 358-367.
    12. Spanos, Aris, 1995. "On theory testing in econometrics : Modeling with nonexperimental data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 189-226, May.
    13. Siobhain McGovern, 2006. "Dealing with the Duhem--Quine thesis in financial economics: can causal holism help?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 105-122, January.
    14. Davis, George C., 2004. "The Structure of Models: Understanding Theory Reduction and Testing with a Production Example," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-14, April.
    15. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-37.
    16. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Tung Liu & Courtenay C. Stone, 1999. "A Critique of One-Tailed Hypothesis Test Procedures in Business and Economics Statistics Textbooks," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 59-63, January.
    18. Terence Hutchison, 2000. "On the Methodology of Economics and the Formalist Revolution," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1719.
    19. Mundlak, Yair, 2001. "Production and supply," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-85, Elsevier.
    20. J. Stephen Clark & K. Gary Grant, 2000. "Popper and Production: Testing Parametric Restrictions in Systems under Nonstationarity," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 48(1), pages 15-25, March.
    21. David F. Hendry, 2005. "Bridging the Gap: Linking Economics and Econometrics," Springer Books, in: Claude Diebolt & Catherine Kyrtsou (ed.), New Trends in Macroeconomics, pages 53-77, Springer.
    22. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 2001. "The agricultural producer: Theory and statistical measurement," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 12, pages 629-741, Elsevier.
    23. Leontief, Wassily, 1971. "Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 1-7, March.
    24. Kim, Jinbang & De Marchi, Neil & Morgan, Mary S., 1995. "Empirical model particularities and belief in the natural rate hypothesis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 81-102, May.
    25. Earl O. Heady & Russell Shaw, 1954. "Resource Returns and Productivity Coefficients in Selected Farming Areas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 243-257.
    26. Stan du Plessis, 2006. "The miracle of the Septuagint and the promise of data mining in economics," Working Papers 15/2006, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    27. Quirino Paris & Michael R. Caputo & Garth J. Holloway, 1993. "Keeping the Dream of Rigorous Hypothesis Testing Alive," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(Special_I), pages 25-40.
    28. Alex Rosenberg, 1993. "Powers and Limits of Agricultural Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(Special_I), pages 15-24.
    29. Wassily Leontief, 1993. "Can Economics be Reconstructed as an Empirical Science?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(Special_I), pages 2-5.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin Hoover & Mark Siegler, 2008. "Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-37.
    2. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further comments on McCloskey & Ziliak," CREATES Research Papers 2009-17, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    4. Kim, Jae H. & Ji, Philip Inyeob, 2015. "Significance testing in empirical finance: A critical review and assessment," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Peter J. Veazie, 2015. "Understanding Statistical Testing," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(1), pages 21582440145, January.
    6. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.
    7. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2013. "We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 97-107, January.
    8. Jason P Brown & Dayton M Lambert & Timothy R Wojan, 2019. "The Effect of the Conservation Reserve Program on Rural Economies: Deriving a Statistical Verdict from a Null Finding," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 528-540.
    9. MacAulay, T. Gordon, 1995. "Games, Clubs And Models: The Economics Of An Agricultural Economics Society," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, April.
    10. Charles G. Renfro, 2009. "The Practice of Econometric Theory," Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Springer, number 978-3-540-75571-5, July-Dece.
    11. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 61, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    12. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky?s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 126, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    13. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    14. Rachel G. Childers, 2011. "Being One'S Own Boss: How Does Risk Fit In?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 56(1), pages 48-58, May.
    15. Ricardo Barradas & Ines Tomas, 2023. "Household indebtedness in the European Union countries: Going beyond the mainstream interpretation," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 76(304), pages 21-49.
    16. Alexander Libman & Joachim Zweynert, 2014. "Ceremonial Science: The State of Russian Economics Seen Through the Lens of the Work of ‘Doctor of Science’ Candidates," Working Papers 337, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    17. Philipp Doerrenberg & Jan Schmitz, 2017. "Tax compliance and information provision. A field experiment with small firms," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 1(1), pages 47-54, February.
    18. Gunter, Ulrich & Önder, Irem & Smeral, Egon, 2019. "Scientific value of econometric tourism demand studies," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Cao, Xinyu, 2008. "Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: A focus on methodologies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 204-228, March.
    20. Jeffrey Edwards & Anya McGuirk, 2004. "Reply to Chang and Ram: Statistical Adequacy and the Reliability of Inference," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(2), pages 244-259, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:stagec:46658. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/akiiihu.html .

    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.