The financial crisis as a symbol of the failure of academic finance? (A methodological digression)
The failure of academic finance can be considered one of the symbols of the financial crisis. Two important underlying reasons why academic finance models systematically fail to account for real-world phenomena follow directly from two conventions: (a) treating economics not as a „true‟ social science, but as a branch of applied mathematics inspired by the methodology of classical physics, and (b) using economic models as if the empirical content of economic theories is not very low. Failure to understand and appreciate the inherent weaknesses of these „conventions‟ had fatal consequences for the use and interpretation of key academic finance concepts and models by market practitioners and policymakers. Theoretical constructs such as the efficient markets hypothesis, rational expectations, and market completeness were too often treated as intellectual dogmas instead of (parts of) falsifiable hypotheses. The situation of capture via dominant intellectual dogmas of policymakers, investors, and business managers was made worse by sins of omission - the failure of academics to communicate the limitations of their models and to warn against (potential) misuses of their research - and sins of commission – introducing (often implicitly) ideological or biased features in research programs. Hence, the deeper problem with finance concepts such as the „efficient markets hypothesis‟ and „ratex theory‟ is not that they are based on assumptions that are considered as not being „realistic‟. The real issue at stake with academic finance is not a quarrel about the validity of the assumption of rational behavior but the inherent semantical insufficiency of economic theories that implies a low empirical content, and a high degree of specification uncertainty. This perspective makes the scientific approach advocated by Friedman and others less straightforward. In addition, there is wide-spread failure to incorporate the key implications of economics as a social science. As a response to these „weaknesses‟ and challenges, five suggested principles or guidelines for future research programs are outlined.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 27 (2009)
Issue (Month): ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 77 Water Street, 10th Floor, New York NY 10005|
Phone: +1 212 284 8600
Web page: http://www.capco.com/
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ris:jofitr:1378. 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: (Prof. Shahin Shojai)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.