Re: The conflict at Notre Dame

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

yes, I agree-math can make ideas more precise and illuminate ideas clearly.

There is much that is of interest (even though my poor mathematics makes it
difficult to understand fully) in endogenous growth theory. But how much
does endogenous growth theory really advance Rostow's volume on economic
growth? How far have the neo-Schumpterians really gotten past Schumpeter?

But has any of this really made the world a better place? Has all the
mathemetization in macro for example, improved the ability of the FED to hit
its targets?

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:rosserjb@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:27 PM
To: Clifford Poirot; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame


Chip,
      Aw heck, I'll bite.  Will provide a boringly neoclassical
example.  I would note that what is involved is using making
more precise or seeing more clearly something that was
probably understood before the math/quant analysis, but
which is confirmed clarified by its use.  My simple example
would be the impact of increasing returns on a general
equilibrium, both its existence and its stability.  This simply
reinforces older observations that competition has trouble
surviving when there are increasing returns.
       I think there are lots of other examples, including even
some heterodox ones, but most of them will have this character,
namely clarifying something that somebody had already thought of.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clifford Poirot" <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: The conflict at Notre Dame


> 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
>
>
>
>