The models Feldstein and Rothschild, on the hand, and Jorgenson on the other adopted in 1974 to highlight the replacement ratio are identical. Yet, the authors reached opposite conclusions and the latter's view prevailed, which is weaker in terms of theoretical and empirical foundations. This paper argues that both puzzles may be resolved by reference to the differences in the methodological preconceptions of the authors involved, the operational advantages of the theorem of proportionality, the accumulated data that facilitate research, the (...) inertia of the status quo, the lack of a model leading to a more useful theorem, the lack of communication among economists and their aversion toward complex solutions and policy prescriptions. In this light it is concluded that the time has come for research efforts to be directed towards constructing and testing models in which the useful life of capital is determined endogenously in the presence of embodied technological change. (shrink)

Milton Friedman's famous methodology essay is one of the most cited in economics literature. There was a time when it was usually cited as a prime example of positivist methodology. But since the publication of my 1979 critique of the critics of his essay, almost everyone now recognizes his essay as a prime example of what I called instrumentalism. Most economists, who when questioned about their views of methodology, will agree with Friedman's instrumentalism but only if Friedman's name is not (...) mentioned. But many of those same economists will claim to disagree with instrumentalism when it is explicitly identified as Friedman's methodology. Unfortunately, such disagreement leads too often to unfair criticism. The question considered is whether this unfair criticism is merely a matter of ideological hypocrisy or more likely a matter of ignorance of methodology. (shrink)

Milton Friedman’s 1953 essay created controversy and consternation amongst economists. It provided a prescription, based on empirically generated predictive success, of how to do economics, yet many saw it as a concession of the search for truth and theoretical beauty within the discipline. This article reviews a 50th anniversary festschrift devoted to views of the essay. The purpose of the volume is to provide today’s reader with the essay, responses, and a guide to interpreting it. The volume is selective and (...) several contributors have their own agendas, but the feeling of tumult the essay still engenders is nicely conveyed. (shrink)

This paper examines two conflicting views that have emerged within the recent methodological literature regarding the relationship between Friedman's famous essay and the formalist revolution. I focus on three influential contributors to this ongoing debate: Mark Blaug, Terence Hutchison, and Thomas Mayer. Blaug and Hutchison have argued repeatedly that Friedman's essay licensed the formalist revolution while Mayer has argued precisely the opposite; the formalist revolution was a result of not following Friedman's methodological advice. The juxtaposition of these (...) views is particularly interesting since the authors disagree sharply about the impact of Friedman's essay, and yet seem to agree about most other aspects of economic methodology. (shrink)

In this paper I study how the theoretical categories of consumption theory were used by Milton Friedman in order to classify empirical data and obtain predictions. Friedman advocated a case by case definition of these categories that traded theoretical coherence for empirical content. I contend that this methodological strategy puts a clear incentive to contest any prediction contrary to our interest: it can always be argued that these predictions rest on a wrong classification of data. My conjecture is that this (...) methodological strategy can contribute to explain why Friedman’s predictions never generated the consensus he expected among his peers. (shrink)