Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

With respect to quantitative methods:

I would like someone to show an example where the use of either higher
mathematics or econometric modeling has provided a theoretical insight that
made any substantial difference in how policy has been executed, and thus
led to an overall improvement in economic performance.

I doubt such an example exists. While not opposing the use of quantitative
methods per se, I think that it is ill advised for heterodox economists to
"ape" neo-classical economics. Method may be the distinguishing factor that
gets new PhD's jobs or sends them to the unemployment line. Yet even the
NC's have done a lot of qualitative analysis. After all, Buchanan does not
have a single equation in his best known writings.

We should focus on what heterodoxers do best-exploring the historical,
evolutionary and institutional dimensions of economic systems. To the extent
that math can aid in that quest, all to the good. To the extent that we can
use mere words-all the better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Danby [mailto:danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:57 PM
To: pkt
Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame


Re:

> The only
> way we can do this is by developing better quantitative
> methods that are in accordance with our own theory and
> method, and make them and their results known through
> media closer to policy makers. Only then can we get the
> recognition we deserve.

This assumes that "recognition" is a simple function of the
quality of quantitative methods, and that PKers are not
recognized because of some lack of said methods.  I suggest
that mainstream objections about the quantitative content
of heterodox economics are generally made in bad faith
(among other things because, typically, they haven't read
any).  And as Bill Mitchell used to remind us, the poor
quality of much mainstream quant work seems no obstacle to
its publication.

By all means, let us develop better quantitative methods.
But let's do it because it's good social science, not in
the naive hope that a clever model or a really tight
statistical fit will suddenly make mainstreamers rush to
embrace us.  The tautological thinking (not to mention
the sheer, shameless philistinism) in the Note Dame case
is too obvious for comment.

Best, Colin