On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, michael perelman wrote: > I tried to show one of the problems with Marxian econometrics. > > www.ucm.es/wwwboard/bas/messages/246.htm Eh? This is Spanish-language get-rich-quick Internet spam. What is the relevance? Like Patrick, I think econometrics is not really optional. In the broad sense (that used by the founders of the Econometric Society in the 1930s) econometrics is simply quantitative economic analysis. In the somewhat narrower sense that the term 'econometrics' has acquired since WWII, it is quantitative analysis based on probability theory, or more specifically the theory of statistical inference as elaborated by Bayes, Neyman and Pearson, and R.A. Fisher (there are differences between these three approaches but modern econometrics comprises them all). I don't say that these theories are beyond question, but in the last half-century nobody has proposed any alternative paradigm for testing/quantifying theory against non-experimental data. They are, collectively, the only game in town. I don't see any inherent connection between neoclassical economic theory and econometrics. They just "happen to go together" in that neoclassical theory has been dominant in the period since econometrics came to maturity; it has therefore provided most of the hypotheses that econometricians have wanted to test. Jerry mentioned some "other approaches" to quantitative analysis, including input-output analysis and "chaos theory". These are of interest but they are not in competition with econometrics; they are both theoretical frameworks rather than methodologies for empirical analysis as such. Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EST