Advertisement

The Regrettable Loss of Mathematical Molding in Econometrics

  • Marcel BoumansEmail author
Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 3)

Abstract

Although most accounts on causality discuss the specific role statistics and theory should have, it is taken for granted that they at least have a role in finding causal structures. The role for mathematics is not so obvious. However, before what is called the Probabilistic Revolution in econometrics, identification of causal relations was not a matter of economic-theoretical and statistical significance alone. Mathematical molding was considered as an essential tool in finding significant causal factors. In the 1940s, mathematical molding disappeared in the changeover from methods to specify causal mechanisms of business cycles to methods to identify economic structures, that is, invariant relationships underlying the workings of an economy. Mathematical molding could fulfill its role in modeling business cycle mechanisms because of the assumed close connection between mathematical representations of the business-cycle phenomenon and those of the explanatory mechanism. When the econometric program shifted its focus from mechanisms explaining phenomena to uncovering structural relationships, direct feedback from the phenomenon to the mechanism was lost and the role of mathematical molding ceased to exist.

Keywords

Business Cycle Cycle Period Time Shape Economic Time Series Mathematical Significance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aftalion, Albert. 1927. The theory of economic cycles based on the capitalistic technique of production. Review of Economic Statistics 9(4): 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, John. 1989. Autonomy. In History and methodology of econometrics, ed. N. de Marchi and C. Gilbert, 15–34. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, John. 1994. Haavelmo’s identification theory. Econometric Theory 10: 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boumans, Marcel. 1995. Frisch on testing of business cycle theories. Journal of Econometrics 67(1): 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boumans, Marcel. 1999. Built-in justification. In Models as mediators, ed. M.S. Morgan and M. Morrison, 66–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boumans, Marcel. 2005. How economists model the world into numbers. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bullock, Charles J., Warren M. Persons, and William L. Crum. 1927. The construction and interpretation of the Harvard index of business conditions. Review of Economic Statistics 9(2): 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao, Hsiang-Ke. 2009. Representation and structure in economics: The methodology of econometric models of the consumption function. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Christ, Carl F. 1994. The Cowles Commission’s contributions to econometrics at Chicago, 1939–1955. Journal of Economic Literature 32(1): 30–59.Google Scholar
  10. Frisch, Ragnar. 1933a. Editorial. Econometrica 1: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frisch, Ragnar. 1933b. Propagation problems and impulse problems in dynamic economics. In Economic essays in honour of Gustav Cassel, 171–205. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Frisch, Ragnar. 1948. Repercussion studies at Oslo. The American Economic Review 38(3): 367–372.Google Scholar
  13. Frisch, Ragnar. 1995. Statistical versus theoretical relations in economic macrodynamics. In The foundations of econometric analysis, ed. D. Hendry and M.S. Morgan, 407–419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Girshick, M.A., and Trygve Haavelmo. 1953. Statistical analysis of the demand for food: Examples of simultaneous estimation of structural equations. In Studies in econometric method, Cowles commission monograph 14, ed. W.C. Hood and T.C. Koopmans, 92–111. New York: Wiley. First published in 1947 in Econometrica 15.2: 79–110.Google Scholar
  15. Haavelmo, Trygve. 1940. The inadequacy of testing dynamic theory by comparing theoretical solutions and observed cycles. Econometrica 8: 312–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haavelmo, Trygve. 1944. The probability approach in econometrics. Supplement to Econometrica 12: 1–115.Google Scholar
  17. Haavelmo, Trygve. 1950. Remarks on Frisch’s confluence analysis and its use in econometrics. In Statistical inference in dynamic economic models, Cowles commission monograph 10, ed. T.C. Koopmans, 258–265. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hanau, Arthur. 1928. Die Prognose der Schweinepreise, Vierteljahrshefte zur Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft Berlin: Institut für Konjunkturforschung 7.Google Scholar
  19. Hendry, David F., and Mary S. Morgan (eds.). 1995. The foundations of econometric analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hoover, Kevin D. 1994. Econometrics as observation: The Lucas critique and the nature of econometric inference. Journal of Economic Methodology 1(1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalecki, Michal. 1935. A macrodynamic theory of business cycles. Econometrica 3: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karsten, Karl G. 1924. The theory of quadrature in economics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 19: 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karsten, K.G. 1926. The Harvard business indexes – A new interpretation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 21: 399–418.Google Scholar
  24. Keynes, John Maynard. 1939. Professor Tinbergen’s method. The Economic Journal 49(195): 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koopmans, Tjalling C., Herman Rubin, and Roy B. Leipnik. 1950. Measuring the equation systems of dynamic economics. In Statistical inference in dynamic economic models, Cowles commission monograph 10, ed. T.C. Koopmans, 53–237. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Magnus, Jan R., and Mary S. Morgan. 1987. The ET interview: Professor J. Tinbergen. Econometric Theory 3: 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marschak, Jacob. 1934. The meeting of the econometric society in Leyden, September–October, 1933. Econometrica 2: 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morgan, Mary S. 1990. The history of econometric ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tinbergen, Jan. 1927. Over de Mathematies-Statistiese Methoden voor Konjunktuuronderzoek. De Economist 11: 711–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tinbergen, Jan. 1928. Opmerkingen over Ruilteorie. Socialistische Gids 13(5): 431–445, 13.6: 539–548.Google Scholar
  31. Tinbergen, Jan. 1931. Ein Schiffbauzyklus? Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 34(2): 152–164.Google Scholar
  32. Tinbergen, Jan. 1933a. L’Utilisation des Équations Fonctionnelles et des Nombres Complexes Dans les Recherches Économiques. Econometrica 1: 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tinbergen, Jan. 1933b. Statistiek en Wiskunde in Dienst van het Konjunktuuronderzoek. Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers.Google Scholar
  34. Tinbergen, Jan. 1935. Annual survey: Suggestions on quantitative business cycle theory. Econometrica 3(3): 241–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tinbergen, Jan. 1939a. Statistical testing of business-cycle theories I; a method and its application to investment activity. Geneva: League of Nations.Google Scholar
  36. Tinbergen, Jan. 1939b. Statistical testing of business-cycle theories II; business cycles in the United States of America. Geneva: League of Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amsterdam School of EconomicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and EconomicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations