IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v40y2011i4p436-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of econometrics in economic science: An essay about the monopolization of economic methodology by econometric methods

Author

Listed:
  • Pinto, Hugo

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Pinto, Hugo, 2011. "The role of econometrics in economic science: An essay about the monopolization of economic methodology by econometric methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 436-443, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:40:y:2011:i:4:p:436-443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535711000424
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. COLANDER & al., 2010. "The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 6.
    2. Engle, Robert & Granger, Clive, 2015. "Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 39(3), pages 106-135.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Chick, Victoria, 1998. "On Knowing One's Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1859-1869, November.
    6. Pagan, Adrian, 1987. " Three Econometric Methodologies: A Critical Appraisal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 3-24.
    7. Haavelmo, Trygve, 1997. "Econometrics and the Welfare State," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(6), pages 13-15, December.
    8. Krugman, Paul, 1998. "Two Cheers for Formalism," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1829-1836, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Hendry, David F, 1980. "Econometrics-Alchemy or Science?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 47(188), pages 387-406, November.
    11. Sheila C. Dow, 2007. "Variety Of Methodological Approach In Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 447-465, July.
    12. Marchionatti Roberto, 2002. "Dealing with complexity Marshall and Keynes on the nature of economic thinking," CESMEP Working Papers 200201, University of Turin.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. G. M.P. Swann, 2006. "Putting Econometrics in its Place," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 858.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:energy:v:134:y:2017:i:c:p:951-961 is not listed on IDEAS

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.