This article critically evaluates Itzhak Gilboa, Andrew Postlewaite, Larry Samuelson, and David Schmeidler’s account of economic models. First, it gives a selective overview of their argument, highlighting their emphasis on similarity and oversight of the role of idealizations in economics. Second, it proposes a sketch of an account of models as arguments and argumentative devices. This account not only sheds light on Gilboa et al.’s approach, including its shortcomings, but also identifies key challenges in model-based inference, suggesting a fresh perspective (...) on the uses of models in economics for diverse objectives. (shrink)

This essay aims to provide a rigorous foundation for Gilboa's, Postlewaite's, Samuelson's and Schmeidler's (GPSS's) account of the constitution of models and the role of models in explanation and prediction. Although I shall offer some criticisms, my goal is to sketch analyses of explanations and models that complement GPSS's distinctions between the uses of models to explain, prescribe, predict, and explore the consequences of theories.

Methodological appraisal usually aims at a discourse that contributes to the improvement of knowledge production processes in economics. Attempts by economists, such as that by Gilboa et al. (2022. Economic theories and their dueling interpretations. Journal of Economic Methodology, 1–20) to engage in such a discourse are laudable and needed because they draw on field-specific expertise and experience from economic practice and thereby can steer such discourse into promising directions. However, while Gilboa et al. seem to share the ambition of (...) doing economic methodology in the service of progress, their contribution is not sufficiently self-critical. Instead of seriously considering the diversity of contemporary modeling practices, their position commits them to an outdated view of economics and can be read as licensing the preservation of conceptual and theoretical elements of standard economics that the discipline has long been criticized for. As such, the authors miss out on fully reaching their own ambitions of a practice-based appraisal that pushes economists towards self-critical and forward-looking modeling. (shrink)

This comment on 'Economic theories and their Dueling interpretations' questions the descriptive adequacy of the ‘sociology of economics' proposed by Gilboa, Postlewaite, Samuelson, and Schmeidler (GPSS) (2022). We ask whether economists still perceive the role of microeconomic theory as central as do GPSS. In particular, is present-day economics unified by the principles of maximising, subject to constraints and equilibrium analysis? We argue that this is not the case. GPSS’ appeal to the interpretative flexibility of economic theories appears apologetic, especially the (...) suggestion that theories and models, which once were considered positive descriptions or predictive instruments, are now cast as analytical or methodological exercises. We conclude on a more constructive note, drawing from the recent philosophical discussion of modelling which, quite paradoxically, grants highly idealized and simplified models a more important role than GPSS appear to allow. (shrink)

We mobilise contemporary philosophy of science to further clarify observations on economic modelling made by Gilboa et al. (2023). We adopt a normative stance towards these modelling practices to identify the extent to which they are epistemically justified. Our message is simple: many of the distinctions proposed by Gilboa et al. (2023) are useful, but without the proper qualifications, too much flexibility in choosing the right interpretation risks downplaying the crucial role that empirical evidence should play in any modelling endeavour.

Economics is a societally influential discipline, but the relationship of its theoretical activity to social reality and practical policy is chronically puzzling. Its theoretical models appear to involve a lot of falsehood, and modellers seem unconcerned about this and about any possible future uses of the models, while sticking to the same unifying theoretical framework. Gilboa et al. (2014, 2022) aspire to resolve the puzzle in terms of varying interpretations of models. I offer critical comments on their ideas while expanding (...) and refining my own account of what I call model commentary whose task is to help understand and evaluate the process of modelling. I point out the rich complexity of adequate commentaries and discuss the issue of whose responsibility it is to construe and communicate them. (shrink)

Volume 31, Issue 3, September 2024, Page 177-181.

In this article, we reassess two of Mises’ core methodological claims. The first claim is that action is necessarily rational. The second claim is that all human minds share a logical structure. Neither claim can be unreservedly accepted but, we argue, both contain truth: Mises’ reflections remain important contributions to our understanding of action and the mind, hence to economics.

Economists use a variety of normative empirical concepts because the economy and morality are intertwined. Often, this normativity is intended and widely acknowledged, signaling the relevance and meaning of research. Sometimes, the objectivity of research and the findings obtained by using normative concepts is problematic. Written from the perspective of a practicing economist, the article offers a practical guiding tool to economists, suggesting how to be responsible in developing and using normative empirical concepts. It is based on valuable insights from (...) the philosophy of science and codes of conduct. It illustrates the use of the guiding tool with the example of a normative empirical concept that is widely used in development economics: ‘ethnic fractionalization’. The conclusion is that applied economists should be more involved in being accountable for the normativity in our work and that we should ensure that, by using the tool, the normative concepts that we use are acceptable. (shrink)

Economics and biology have long been overlapping and mutually enriching fields. We contribute to this cross-fertilization by spelling out the implications for economic theory of some recent insights from evolutionary neurobiology. We note that dynamic homeostasis, a core feature of life processes, has shaped social interactions at varied stages of evolution – from the patterns of competition and cooperation among early life forms to the complex process of human cultures. The resulting homeostatic perspective is not compatible with several leading economic (...) theories but does provide a biological footing for promising concepts such as ecological rationality, heuristics, heterogeneity of economic agents, and complex, self-organizing dynamics. (shrink)

This paper examines Kirzner's contribution to the study of the equilibrating tendency in economics. By analyzing his interpretation of Jevons’ law of indifference, we participate in the debate on Kirzner association with neoclassicals when discussing the equilibrating tendency. A reconstruction of Kirzner’s use of Jevons’ law is conducted, considering his argumentative strategy when presenting the Austrian economics ideas to other professionals in the field. We conclude that Kirzner drew close to neoclassical economics to emphasize the relevance and uniqueness of Austrian (...) economics. By doing so, we highlight the main differences between the two currents of economic thought. (shrink)

In the context of strategic interactions, individuals sometimes find themselves better off when they have fewer options. This mechanism is known under the name of ‘strategic commitment’, as it is usually the individuals themselves who ‘commit’ to following a certain course of action by restricting their options; but that is not necessary. I explain how a paternalistic intervention may be conceived where it is a third party who paternalistically restricts rational individuals’ choices to improve their welfare. This kind of intervention, (...) which I call ‘strategic paternalism’, contradicts the narrative according to which welfare economics is incompatible with paternalism because it assumes individual rationality, which would make paternalism irrelevant. To prove this point, I show why and in what sense this ‘strategic paternalism’ deserves to be called that way. (shrink)

Within the heterodox economic literature on pluralism, attention has predominately focussed on epistemic and methodological levels. The response to the question of what ontological pluralism could mean, and its contribution to the debate, remains limited. This paper argues for greater attention to be given to ontological pluralism, not only because it enriches the existing discussions around pluralism in the heterodox literature but it also provides support for a plurality of epistemological standards and methodological approaches. The paper proposes an alternative definition (...) of ontological pluralism based on the work of McDaniel and Turner. Both argue that ontological pluralism should be understood as saying that there are different ways to exist and that acceptance of the semantic characteristics of ontological questions and statements within different ontological discourses are essential in a proper definition. This paper details their definition and explores its consequences with an analysis of the Searle–Lawson dispute on social objects. (shrink)

Randomized control trials (RCTs) are recognized as the preferred tool of analysis in modern development economics literature/research and policy evaluation. This may lead to methodologies, including case studies, tabular analysis, simple regressions, taking a back seat. This survey explores the implications of such a methodological hierarchy and the implications of preoccupation with a particular evidence/methodology for research and policy. Similar developments in macroeconomic modelling are also discussed. Major advantages and limitations of RCTs and the attempts to address them are highlighted. (...) The article argues that preoccupation with a methodology can sometimes lead to important inquiries for research and policy getting side-lined on methodological considerations. This leads to inferences favouring a particular technique/methodology or issue. Focusing solely on methodologies that emphasize quantifying the ‘effect’ may not be appropriate to address all questions relevant to development. As policies involve multiple and conflicting social concerns, methodological pluralism may be preferable. (shrink)

Several authors have recently argued that the excessive focus on equilibrium models in mainstream economic analysis prevents economists from providing accurate representations of the complex and dynamic nature of real economic systems. In response, this paper argues the following. Many economic systems are the products of deliberate and centralized human design. People can and do build and support structures, such as social institutions, aiming to enhance the predictability of economic systems, and thus to move them toward being equilibrium systems. This (...) provides a reason to think that many economic systems can be represented by equilibrium models. (shrink)