The role of econometrics in economic science: An essay about the monopolization of economic methodology by econometric methods
Econometrics is seen as the dominant method in terms of applicability, accuracy and efficiency in economic science. It is widely used and other methods have been reduced to marginal contributions. Econometricians behave as if their techniques were universal when in fact they are not. If alternative methods are accepted, one can largely eliminate the restrictions and distance to reality of econometrics. The article debates the pathways for a satisfactory economics in a context where theoretical and methodological pluralism is entering even in mainstream ideas. The historical construction of econometrics as the main method in economics and the limitations and possibilities of this tool are explored, underlining the need of pluralism.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Marchionatti Roberto, 2002. "Dealing with complexity Marshall and Keynes on the nature of economic thinking," CESMEP Working Papers 200201, University of Turin.
- Davis, John B., 2006. "The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(01), pages 1-20, April.
- Pagan, Adrian, 1987. " Three Econometric Methodologies: A Critical Appraisal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 3-24.
- Katarina Juselius, 2009. "Time to reject the privileging of economic theory over empirical evidence? A Reply to Lawson (2009)," Discussion Papers 09-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
- Chick, Victoria, 1998. "On Knowing One's Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1859-69, November.
- Lutkepohl, Helmut, 2007. "General-to-specific or specific-to-general modelling? An opinion on current econometric terminology," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 319-324, January.
- Paul Downward & Andrew Mearman, 2005. "Methodological Triangulation at the Bank of England:An Investigation," Working Papers 0505, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
- Sheila C. Dow, 2007. "Variety Of Methodological Approach In Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 447-465, 07.
- Tony Lawson, 2009. "The current economic crisis: its nature and the course of academic economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 759-777, July.
- G. M.P. Swann, 2006. "Putting Econometrics in its Place," Books, Edward Elgar, number 858, March.
- Krugman, Paul, 1998. "Two Cheers for Formalism," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1829-36, November.
- Hendry, David F, 1980. "Econometrics-Alchemy or Science?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 47(188), pages 387-406, November.
- Engle, Robert F & Granger, Clive W J, 1987. "Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 251-76, March.
- Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. economic significance in economics and econometrics: further comments on McCloskey and Ziliak," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 393-408.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:40:y:2011:i:4:p:436-443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.