, Volume 190, Issue 2, pp 321–337 | Cite as

De-idealization by commentary: the case of financial valuation models

  • Ekaterina SvetlovaEmail author


Is there a unique way to de-idealize models? If not, how might the possible ways of reducing the distortion between models and reality differ from each other? Based on an empirical case study conducted in financial markets, this paper discusses how a popular valuation model (the Discounted Cash Flow model) idealizes reality and how the market participants de-idealize it in concrete market situations. In contrast to Cartwright’s view that economic models are generally over-constrained, this paper suggests that valuation models are under-constrained. This serves as the reason why the relaxation of simplifying assumptions and concretization do not work as methods of de-idealization. The paper finds that financial market participants de-idealize models using commentary that takes the form of judgment. As a conclusion, a hypothesis is formulated that proposes that the more underdetermined the model is the bigger role narrative and other pragmatic elements play in the process of model application.


Economic models Financial models Idealization Judgment Justification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexandrova A. (2008) Making models count. Philosophy of Science 75: 383–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrova, A. (2009). What conclusions do models warrant? Paper presented at the “Models and Simulations 3” Conference, Charlottesville, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur W. B. (1995) Complexity in economic and financial markets. Complexity 1: 20–25Google Scholar
  4. Betz G. (2006) Prediction or prophecy?: The boundaries of economic foreknowledge and their socio-political consequences. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon M., Knuuttila T. (2009) Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences: A pragmatic approach. In: Meijers A. (ed) Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier Science, North Holland, pp 693–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boumans M.J. (1999) Built-in justification. In: Morgan M.S., Morrison M. (eds) Models as mediators.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In M. Callon (Ed.), The laws of the market (pp. 1–57). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright N. (1989) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cartwright N. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartwright N. (2009) If no capacities then no credible worlds But can models reveal capacities?. Erkenntnis 70: 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbin J. M., Strauss A. L. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  12. Derman, E. (1996). Model risk. Quantitative strategies research notes, Goldmann Sachs. Retrieved Feb 29, 2012
  13. Hausman D. (1992) The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hitchner J. R. (2003) Financial valuation: Application and models. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, M. (2005). Idealization and abstraction: The framework. In M. Jones & N. Cartwright (Eds.), Idealization XII: Correcting the model: Idealization and abstraction in sciences, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 86 (pp. 173–217). New York: Rodopi).Google Scholar
  16. Knuuttila T. (2009) Isolating representations versus credible constructions? Economic modelling in theory and practice. Erkenntnis 70: 59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knuuttila T. (2011) Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koller T., Goedhart M., Wessels D. (2005) Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackenzie D. (2003) An equation and its worlds: Bricolage, exemplars, disunity and performativity in financial economics. Social Studies of Science 33: 831–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mackenzie D. (2006) An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Mäki, U. (1992). On the method of isolation in economics. In C. Dilworth (Ed.), Idealization IV: Intelligibility in science, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 26 (pp. 319–354). New York: Rodopi).Google Scholar
  22. Mäki U. (2009) MISSing the world. Models as isolations and credible surrogate systems. Erkenntnis 70: 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMullin E. (1985) Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montier J. (2007) Behavioural investing: A practitioner’s guide to applying behavioural finance. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan M. S. (2001) Models, stories and the economic world. Journal of Economic Methodology 8: 361–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morrison M., Morgan M. S. (1999) Models as mediators. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Nowak L. (1980) The structure of idealization: Towards a systematic interpretation of the Marxian idea of science. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowak L. (1989) On the (idealizational) structure of economic theories. Erkenntnis 30: 225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poitras G. (2002) The philosophy of investment: A post Keynesian perspective. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 25: 105–121Google Scholar
  30. Soros G. (1998) The crisis of global capitalism: Open society endangered. Public Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Star S. L., Griesemer J. R. (1989) Institutional ecology, ’translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taleb N. N., Haug E. G. (2011) Option traders use (very) sophisticated heuristics, never the Black–Scholes–Merton formula. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 77: 97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Triana, P. (2007, January 15). Derivatives tool that renders maths irrelevant. Financial Times, p. 6.Google Scholar
  34. Van Egmond S., Zeiss R. (2010) Modeling for policy: Science-based models as performative boundary objects for Dutch policy making. Science Studies 23: 58–78Google Scholar
  35. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, CIV, 639–659.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karlshochschule International UniversityKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations