Economics and similar, for the sleep-deprived

A subtle change has been made to the comments links, so they no longer pop up. Does this in any way help with the problem about comments not appearing on permalinked posts, readers?

Update: seemingly not

Update: Oh yeah!


Monday, January 31, 2011

 
Other way round, I think

Cosma writes:

1. Obviously, macroeconomic phenomena are the aggregated (or, if you like, the emergent) consequences of microeconomic interactions. What else could they be? Analogously, the macroscopic physical properties of condensed matter all ultimately emerge from molecular interactions.

2. Macroeconomic theories which do not derive such phenomena from microscopic interactions are thus incomplete, and intellectually unsatisfying. Analogously, theories of condensed matter which do not derive the phenomena from molecular interactions are incomplete.

So: the true and complete theory of macroeconomics must emerge from the true and complete theory of microeconomics.


to which I don't wholly object ... or maybe I do. I agree with 1. And I agree with the lemma after "So:". But I don't really agree with 2. Not so much in what it says, as the way it says it.

My argument would be that what is it that we really care about when we do economics? The big questions, the ones of price, production, employment and trade. The stuff about individual transactions and agents can be ferociously interesting, and even sometimes useful, once in a blue moon (if you want to buy a second hand car for example), but the point of studying economics is to get answers that are useful at the aggregate, policy level.

So I'd turn this on its head. It isn't about "Does macroeconomics need microfoundations?". It's about "Does microeconomics need macroconsequences?". Leaving the stuff about condensed matter out, I'd rewrite 2 as:

2: Theories of microscopic interactions which do not imply accurate predictions about macroeconomic phenomena are thus incomplete, and intellectually unsatisfying.

And then the rest of the argument goes through mutatis mutandis, right through to the analogies with particle physics. Price theory, the expected utility model of choice theory and Nash/von Neumann/Morgenstern game theory have done very well in their fields - they even quite clearly describe certain aspects of the underlying truth about how economic actors behave. But they've failed the most crucial test - they don't help us generalise out to a theory of the behaviour of the whole economy, taken as a whole. They don't even (as the statements made by half the Chicago faculty over the last three years demonstrate more than adequately) help us to avoid saying things about the macroeconomy which fail to respect adding-up and stock/flow-consistency constraints, or well-established empirical relationships.

The New Keynesian project worked in this sort of spirit - recognising that we basically only had one family of macroeconomic models which even slightly worked, and attempting to work back into microeconomics to justify it. This approach, unfortunately, led us to DGSE and all that; it didn't work. I think that the conclusion from that ought to be that you can't get the Keynesian (or rather, the correct - the eventual macro model might not be Keynesian I suppose) conclusions simply from price theory and game theory[1], and so microeconomics needs to be re-established on some other basis that preserves the insights of what Phil Mirowski called the "cyborg science" era but moves on. In some unspecified way that I don't care about because I don't really agree with Cosma that there's anything particularly unsatisfying about macroeconomics without microfoundations[2].

[1] Or at least without explicitly modelling such a complicated and combinatorially huge nexus of principal/agent interactions at every management level of every firm, giving you a map potentially several times larger than the territory.

[2] This might be because my brain is smaller than his and thus more easily repleted.

Edit: reading back, I don't think I've emphasised enough how much I agree with Cosma's actual argument - I just think it's a damnable impudence on the part of microeconomists to have ever claimed otherwise! I also tend toward the view (also, I think, held by JW Mason) that any "correct theory of microeconomics" which has enough relevant and accurate macroimplication, is going to have imported a hell of a lot of specific and contingent institutional detail, rather than looking anything like a general theory of decision-making (there's another subject where all that stuff belongs, and it's called "decision theory", not "economics", but I think that demarcation dispute is for another time).
12 comments this item posted by the management 1/31/2011 06:17:00 AM


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?




Links:

Bitch : Lab
Aaronovitch Watch
Balkanalysis
Perfect.co.uk
Maxspeak
Brad Delong
The Robert Vienneau blog

Political and philosophical heroes

Subcomandante Marcos
Will Rogers
Boris Vian
The English Svejk

RSS Feed:
This seems to matter to a lot of people

If you liked this "Daniel Davies" website, you might be interested in

"Danux", the web developer
The martial artist (and fan of extremely annoying Flash intros) from Blackburn
The Welsh political journalist
A Scouse computer programmer who collects Soviet cameras
"Danimal", the heavy metal drummer
Canada's finest recorder of radio jingles
More of the same, at the Guardian
A tailor's in Lampeter where Jimmy Carter once bought a hat
An advertising man who has written a novel about dogging (I think we sometimes get each other's email)
An award-winning facilities manager in Dubai
The son of the guitarist from the Kinks Update: he is apparently "balls-out motherfucking shit-dicked exxxstatic" to be included on a Kerrang magazine giveaway CD of Iron Maiden covers, which is nice.
"Fritz Gretel" from the Ramones film "Rock 'n' Roll High School"
The former presenter of the leading politics talk radio show on the Isle of Man, now a business change manager in the Manx government secretary's office
An aquarium curator in Sussex who keeps on scoring home runs like this (this is the first stable link I've found, but he is constantly kicking ass in acquarial terms)

If you didn't like this "Daniel Davies" website, then don't give up on the Daniel Davies industry completely!

An American "Christian Political Analyst" who has the same name as me
A student at Patrick Henry College
these two might be the same guy ...
"Scatter", the deceased Liberian gangster
A naked man stuck in a chimney in Wigan
A thug in Barrow



This blog has been going downhill since ...

August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
November 2003
December 2003
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
December 2012
February 2013
April 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
March 2014
April 2014
August 2014
October 2015