What is the significance of GDP per capita to a society? What does it represent conceptually? These questions have been addressed in past decades, engendering extensive explorations of the limitations of the indicator, yet answers have proved problematic or partial. The paper presents the main conclusions so far drawn and builds upon them to present a new reading of the significance of GDP per capita. At the heart of this reading is the view that, while GDP per capita is not (...) indicative of the welfare of individuals, it is indicative of an irreducible ‘group well-being.’ This view, however, requires one to relinquish the belief that only individuals can be ‘well.’ It turns out that the allegedly orthodox view, which sees GDP as a human-centered indicator, requires an unorthodox philosophical standpoint, one that accepts an irreducible group well-being. The paper presents this alternative interpretation and addresses its upsides and limitations. (shrink)

Financial modelling is an essential tool for studying the possibility of financial transactions. This paper argues that financial models are conventional tools widely used in formulating and establishing possibility claims about a prospective investment transaction, from a set of governing possibility assumptions. What is distinctive about financial models is that they articulate how a transaction possibly could occur in a non-actual investment scenario given a limited base of possibility conditions assumed in the model. For this reason, it is argued that (...) the epistemic contribution of financial models is that of enabling the model users to envision exactly how a prospective investment could be achieved in various ways through a detailed understanding of the available transaction mechanisms. Thus, financial models provide information about the possibility of an investment scenario by showing how a specific transaction mechanism could result from a small set of initial possibility conditions assumed in the model. (shrink)

This note aims to assist applied econometricians in understanding the tools of causal inference and to extend those discussed in Nick Huntington-Klein's review of The Book of Why.

From the mid-1960s until the late 1980s, the well-known general philosophies of science of the time were applied to economics. The result was disappointing: none seemed to fit. This paper argues that this is due to a special feature of economics: it possesses ‘orientational paradigms’ in high number. Orientational paradigms are similar to Kuhn’s paradigms in that they are shared across scientific communities, but dissimilar to Kuhn’s paradigms in that they are not generally accepted as valid guidelines for further research. (...) As will be shown by several examples, orientational paradigms provide economics with common points of reference that support its epistemic coherence and make scientific discourse more easily possible across school boundaries. With the help of systematicity theory, a newer general philosophy of science, one can further elucidate the role of orientational paradigms with regard to scientific progress. (shrink)