Why every econ paper should come with a warning label!
from Lars Syll
It should be part of the academic competences of trained economists to be able to be clear about what their models are for; what the models are about; what the models are capable of doing, and what not; how reliable the models are; what sorts of criticisms have been levelled against the models and how the criticisms have been responded; what alternative models there are; etc. The challenge is not easy, and it is clear that it has not been met with sufficient exuberance and success. The capacity of writing “warning labels” would be part of the needed professional competence. Such warning labels would alert the relevant audiences to the capabilities and limitations of the models …
Exceptional amongst the social sciences is the role of the economics discipline in contemporary society, the intellectual and political authority economics enjoys regardless of its failures. Above, I cited Colander’s confession, “we pretend we understand more than we do” and we could add that economists do so in order to – or with the consequence of – protecting and promoting their socially acknowledged authority. In the worst case, there is a nightmarish scenario on which the more economists are consulted for policy advice, the more they need to pretend to know, and so the higher the likelihood of policies going astray. Avoiding the nightmare would require some smart restructuring of the institutions of the economics discipline. Uskali Mäki
It should be part of the academic competences of trained economists to be able to be clear about what their models are for; what the models are about; what the models are capable of doing, and what not; how reliable the models are; what sorts of criticisms have been levelled against the models and how the criticisms have been responded; what alternative models there are; etc. The challenge is not easy, and it is clear that it has not been met with sufficient exuberance and success. The capacity of writing “warning labels” would be part of the needed professional competence. Such warning labels would alert the relevant audiences to the capabilities and limitations of the models …































Agreed
.
The study of economics and economic history must go hand in hand to see how we got to where we are today. To profit from failure takes humility. To treasure exceptions takes a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. That is sometimes a goal at odds with textbook and literature-only economics.
.
A study of the SIGNATURES of historical paradigm changes (not just the historical process itself as with Kuhn) would do more for progress in economics than all of the repetitive name dropping, iconoclastic obsession with describing only the problems and failure to come into a new unit of time regarding the study.
Endlessly ruminating over details already resolved by new insights is the epitome of rigid orthodoxy and the definition of paradigm duncery. Craig