Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

[Bill Mitchell <ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Clifford wrote:

> 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.

all policy design is based on quantitative modelling of one sort or
another. there is
no other game in town and so progressive economists MUST develop capacities
in this area of the discipline. I don't subscribe to the view that the
techniques are
paradigm-specific and so must be rejected by progressives if the orthodoxy uses
them.

Properly executed quantitative studies are also essential to keep an effective
level of debate going against the mainstream.


> 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.

yes but also being exposed to modern quantitative (econometric) techniques
may also attract young PhDs to the progressive cause if they see it has
some "substance". By this I mean that if they have been exposed to orthodoxy
first and are already leaning to the view that "science" requires
"rigorous" foundations
and sophisticated econometrics .... then a progressive economist with all
the tools
can show them (a) how vacuous orthodoxy is, and (b) how exciting a progressive
applied agenda can be.

> 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.

definitely.

On the unified paradigm that Paul advocates: I see more division among
progressives
in many cases than across paradigms. Many progressives span the border line
between
the orthodoxy and something else. I don't see any hope for uniting behind a
"keynes"-type
basis, of the sort that Paul advocates. In that sense, I also think
Clifford's recent post
on the sterility of the party-line among progressives was interesting.

best wishes
bill


William F. Mitchell
Professor of Economics
Director, Centre of Full Employment and Equity
University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +61-2-4921 5065
Fax:   +61-2-4921 6919
Mobile: 0419 422 410

http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
http://www.billmitchell.org