Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Causality in economics: Rhetorical ethic or positivist empiric?

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of ‘causality’ in the social and behavioural sciences, particularly as deployed in economics and econometrics (or statistical testing in general). Causality is closely associated with empirical testing of theories and hypotheses in an empiricist manner. In this way it is fundamentally connected to our notions of scientific endeavour. But causality is also a rhetorical category in these areas, as well as in everyday debate about social and economic matters. The question raised is ‘Why has causality come to occupy such a central place in our intellectual culture? What are the conditions of existence of a “causal culture” in both the domain of scientific endeavour and popular disputation?’ The argument is that there are a wide range of conditions that support this ‘causal culture’ not least of which is an ethical imperative associated with a felt need to attribute blame for mishaps, accidents, conditions of life, and so on. Thus an ethic of morality is strongly involved. The rhetorical operation of causality is linked to this ethic and, in addition, to a range of other non-ethical conditions for the ‘causality culture’ within economics and related disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barro, R. J. and Gordon, D. B. (1983). Rules, discretion and reputation in a model of monetary policy,Journal of Monetary Economics 12, 101–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, E. (1967).The Foundations of Constructivist Analysis, New York, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, K. and Christensen, M. (1989). Monetary policy and policy credibility: theories and evidence,Journal of Economic Literature XXVII, 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, A. (1979). Constructivist mathematics,Scientic American, pp. 134–43.

  • Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings, Chicago, Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, T. F. and Le Roy, S. F. (1985). Atheoretical macroeconomics: a critique,Journal of Monetary Economics 16, 282–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, T. F. and Le Roy, S. F. (1986). What will take the con out of econometrics? a reply to McAleer, Pagan and Volker,American Economic Review 76(3), 504–507 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)op cit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, F. T. (1985). Data mining as an industry,The Review of Economics and Statistics LXVII(1), 124–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, F. T. (1988). The significance of significance: rhetorical aspects of statistical hypothesis testing in economics, in Klamer, A., McCloskey, D., and Solow, R. M. (eds.),The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewald, W. G., Thursby, J. G., and Anderson, R. G. (1986). Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project,American Economic Review 76(4), 587–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewald, W. G., Thursby, J. G., and Anderson, R. G. (1988). Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project: reply,American Economic Review 78(5), 1162–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dostal, R. J. (1980). Kant and rhetoric,Philosophy and Rhetoric 13(4), 223–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. (1982).Michel Foucault, Chicago, Chicago UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause,Psychology Bulletin 99(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. F., Hendry, D. F., and Richard, J.-V. (1983). Exogeneity,Econometrica 51, 227–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. L. (1986a). The development of British economitrics 1945–85, Applied Economics Discussion Paper no. 8, Oxford, Institute of Economics and Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. L. (1986b). Professor Hendry's econometric methodology,Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 48(3), 283–376 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)op cit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. L. (1988).Alternative Approaches to Time Series Methodology in Econometrics, Institute of Economics and Statistics, May, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. W. J. and Newbold, P. (1977).Forecasting Economic Time Series, New York, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. W. J. (ed.) (1990).Modelling Economic Series: Readings in Econometric Methodology, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, D. (1985). Predictions and causes: a comparison of Friedman and Hicks on method, inEconomic Theory and Hicksian Themes, Collard, D. A., Helm, D. R., Scott, M. F. G., and Sen, A. K. (eds.), Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, D. F. (1983). On Keynesian model building and the rational expectations critique: a question of methodology',Cambridge Journal of Economics 7, 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, D. F. (1987). Econometric methodology: a personal perspective, in Bewley, T. F. (ed.),Advances in Econometrics — Fifth World Congress, Vol. II, Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, D. F. (1988). Encompassing,National Institute Economic Review, August, 88–92.

  • Hendry, D. F., Learner, E. E., and Poirier, D. J. (1990). The ET dialogue: a conversation on econometric methodology,Econometric Theory, 171–261.

  • Henkel, R. E. (1976).Tests of Significance, Beverley Hills, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. (1979).Causality in Economics, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. (1984). The “New Causality”: an explanation,Oxford Economic Papers 36, 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildreth, C. (1986).The Cowles Commission in Chicago 1939–1955, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems no. 271, Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1985). Against parsimony,Economics and Philosophy 1, 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kydland, F. E. and Prescott, E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans,Journal of Political Economy 85(3), 473–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. E. (1983). Guilt, shame and morality,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XLM(3), 329–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, E. E. (1983). Let's take the con out of econometrics,American Economic Review 73, 31–43 (reprinted in C. W. Granger (ed.) (1990)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, E. E. (1985). Sensitivity analysis would help,American Economic Review 75(3), 308–313 (reprinted in C. W. Granger (ed.) (1990)op cit.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, E. E. (1987). Econometric metaphors, in Bewley, T. F. (ed.),Advances in Econometrics — Fifth World Congress, Vol II, Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, E. E. (1989), Planning, criticism, and revision,Journal of Applied Econometrics 4 (supplement), 55–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, M. C. (1983). Data mining,The Review of Economics and Statistics LXV(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. (1976). Econometric policy evaluation: a critique,Journal of Monetary Economics supplement 1, 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and conditions,American Philosophical Quarterly 2(4), 245–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAleer, M., Pagan, A. R., and Volker, P. A. (1985). What will take the con out of econometrics?,American Economic Review 75(3), 293–307 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)op cit.).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The loss function has been mislaid,American Economic Review, 201–5.

  • McCloskey, D. N. (1986).The Rhetoric of Economics, Brighton, Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, J. J. (1983). Financial market efficiency, the decomposition of “anticipated” versus “unanticipated” money growth, and further tests of the relation between money and real output,Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 15(2), 222–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, J. J. (1988). Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project: comment,American Economic Review 78(5), 1160–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minson, J. (1989). Men and manners: Kantian humanism, rhetoric and the history of ethics,Economy and Society 18(2), 191–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. and Sklivas, S. (1991). Why econometricians don't replicate (although they do reproduce),Review of Political Economy 3(2), 146–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizon, G. E. (1984). The encompassing principle in econometrics, in Hendry, D. F. and Wallis, K. F. (eds.),Econometrics and Quantitative Economics, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. E. and Henkel, R. E. (May 1969). Significance tests reconsidered,The American Sociologist, 131–40.

  • Morrison, D. E. and Henkel, R. E. (1970).The Significance Test Controversy — A Reader, London, Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagan, A. R. (1987). Three econometric methodologies: a critical appraisal,Journal of Economic Surveys 1(1), 3–24 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, R. H. (1979).The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, Berkeley, University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwert, G. W. (1983). Tests of causality: the message in the innovations,Theory, Policy Institutions: Papers from the Carnegie Rochester Series on Public Policy, Brunner, K. and Meltzer, A. (eds.), 251–256, Amsterdam, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1989). Rhetoric and the recovery of civil society,Economy and Society 18(2), 149–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1953). Causal orderings and identifiablity, inModels of Discovery, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. LIV (54), Boston, D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality,Econometrica 48(1), 1–48 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, A. (1988). Towards a unifying methodological framework for econometric modelling,Economic Notes 1, 107–134 (reprinted in Granger, C. W. (ed.) (1990)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, P. A. V. B., Conway, R. K. and Von Zur Muehlen, P. (1985). The foundations of econometrics — are there any?Econometric Reviews 4(1), 1–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy, P. A. V. B. and Von Zur Muehlen, P. (1988). Further thoughts on testing for causality with econometric models,Journal of Econometrics 39, 105–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G. F. (1991). Is accounting rhetorical?, methodology, Luca Pacioli and printing,Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(4/6), 572–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G. F. (1993). Rhetoric and the development of early double entry bookkeeping, in Hopwood, A. and Miller, P. (eds.),Accounting in its Social Context, Cambridge, CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. (1970). Money and income: post hoc ergo procter hoc?,Quarterly Journal of Economics LXXXIV, 301–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, B. (1988).In Defence of Rhetoric, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walwick, N. (1989). Phillips' approximate regression, inHistory and Methodology of Econometrics, de Marchi, N. and Gilbert, C. (eds.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, P. (1986).Political Control of the Macroeconomy, London, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, A. (1978). Causality and econometrics,Three Aspects of Policy and Policy Making: Knowledge, Data and Institutions, Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, vol. 10, 9–54, Brunner, K. and Meltzer, A. (eds.), Amsterdam, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, A. (1988). Causality and causal laws in economics,Journal of econometrics 39, 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, MK7 6AA, Milton Keynes, Great Britain

    Grahame F. Thompson

Authors
  1. Grahame F. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is based upon two conference papers; one given at ‘The Rhetoric of the Social Sciences’ conference at the University of Maryland, April 1989 and the other at a conference on ‘Postmodernism and the Social Sciences’ at St Andrews University, August 1989.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, G.F. Causality in economics: Rhetorical ethic or positivist empiric?. Qual Quant 27, 47–71 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01097010

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01097010

Keywords

Search

Navigation