ad hocery

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:16:25 -0600 Abu Rizvi said:
>Would you say who made this charge--of incorporating stylized facts
>as being ad hoc--and against what non-neoc model?  Is this charge
>common?  The usual charge is that non-neoc models are non-optimizing.

Well, in my experience the charge is very common. However, for
this very reason I cannot associate it with anyone or any
writing in particular. In my experience, the charge is roughly
synonymous with the "charge" that the models are without
explicit "microfoundations", but with an added normative
element of disapproval.

>
>Moreover, isn't ad hocery much more commonly leveled against
>neoclassical models, (1) either by non-neoclassicals such as Eatwell
>(imperfectionism), or by (2) neoclassicals holding the view that the
>model in question is assuming things simply to derive desired
>results, but without establishing the assumption from  optimization
>and the usual neoc data of preferences, endowments and technolgy?

I'm not familiar with Eatwells use. The last part of (2) matches
the use I've encountered. The idea has not been so much that
the model thereby achieves targetted results, but the dealing
with a stylized fact by incorporating it is ad hoc. (I assume
your use of 'derive' suggests deriving results _other_ than
the stylized fact.)

My introduction of 'neoclassical' in this context may have been
confusing, since a history of thought perspective would
identify many non-optimizing "neoclassical" models. However,
I think it is fair to say that most contemporary mainstream
macro theory gathers itself under the neoclassical rubric
and is built on "optimizing" foundations.

So, you've got me curious. I've so much accepted this usage
as part of our culture that I've never attended to its
sources. In addition, we seem to have a different spin
on what the charge has meant.

--Alan G. Isaac