A critical regard to the history of econometrics
Econometrics has become such an obvious, objective - almost natural - tool that economists often forget that it has a history of its own, a complex and sometimes problematic history. Two works - Morgan (1990) and Qin (1993) - constitute the Received View of the history of econometrics. Basing our analysis on Leo Corry's methodological (and historiographical) framework of image and body of knowledge, the main purpose of this dissertation is to provide a critical account of the Received View. Our main criticism is that historians of econometrics have a particular image of knowledge that stems from within econometrics itself, generating a problem of reflexivity. This means that historians of econometrics would evaluate econometrics and its history from an econometrician point of view, determining very specific criteria of what should be considered as "true", what should be studied or what should be the questions that the scientific community should ask. This reflexive vision has conducted the Received View to write an internalist and funnel-shaped version of the History of Econometrics, presenting it as a lineal process progressing towards the best possible solution: Structural Econometrics and Haavelmo's Probability Approach in Econometrics (1944). The present work suggests that a new history of econometrics is needed. A new history that would overcome the reflexivity problem yielding a certainly messier and convoluted but also richer vision of econometrics' evolution, rather than the lineal path towards progress presented by the Received View.
|Date of creation:||11 Jun 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-00906285|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ |
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.:
- Dharmapala, D, 1993. " On the History and Methodology of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 85-103.
- D. Wade Hands, 1990. "Thirteen theses on progress in economic methodology," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 72-76, Spring.
- D. Wade Hands, 2002. "Economic methodology is dead - long live economic methodology: thirteen theses on the new economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 49-63.
- Marcel Boumans & Ariane Dupont-Kieffer, 2011.
"A History of the Histories of Econometrics,"
History of Political Economy,
Duke University Press, vol. 43(5), pages 5-31, Supplemen.
- Neil Ericsson, 2004. "The ET interview: professor David F. Hendry," International Finance Discussion Papers 811, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521797962 is not listed on IDEAS
- Paul Davidson, 2010. "Black swans and Knight's epistemological uncertainty: are these concepts also underlying behavioral and post-Walrasian theory?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 32(4), pages 567-570, July.
- Mirowski, Philip, 1989. "The Probabilistic Counter-Revolution, or How Stochastic Concepts Came to Neoclassical Economic Theory," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 217-35, January.
- de Marchi, Neil & Gilbert, Christopher L, 1989. "History and Methodology of Econometrics: Introduction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 1-11, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:dumas-00906285. 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: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.