Further to my post, 'Clash of the Titans', I just read Gregory Mankiw's interesting analysis with respect to one-upmanship in economics. To place my post in context, Mankiw argues that neo-classical economists and new Keynesians face each other down much like two men in a bar fight. On the one side, we have Robert Solow sticking up for the new Keynesians; on the other side, Robert Lucas for the neo-classicals.
Perhaps one could label this effect, 'economic pugilism' - though, as I mentioned, the phenomenon extends beyond finance, economics or policy-making. In any event, here is an excerpt from Mankiw's paper (cited in a previous post), 'The Macroeconomist as Scientist and Engineer'. Enjoy!
'.. this dispute reflects the differing perspectives of the protagonists about the goal of the field. Lucas seems to be complaining that Solow does not appreciate the greater analytic rigor that new classical macroeconomics can offer. Solow seems to be complaining the Lucas does not appreciate the patent lack of reality of his market-clearing assumptions. They each have a point. From the standpoint of science, the greater rigor that the new classicals offered has much appeal. But from the standpoint of engineering, the cost of this added rigor seems too much to bear.
I dwell on the nature of this debate not only because it reflects the underlying tension between scientists and engineers but also because it helps explain the choices made by the next generation of economists. Such vitriol among intellectual giants attracts attention (much in the way that the patrons in a bar gather around a fist fight, egging on the participants). But it was not healthy for the field of macroeconomics. Not surprisingly, many young economists chose to avoid taking sides in this dispute by turning their attention away from economic fluctuations and toward other topics' (p 14)
No comments:
Post a Comment