Suchergebnisse

En febrero de 1957, Milton Friedman y Gary Becker (1957) acusaron a los modelizadores keynesianos de caer en una ilusión estadística basada en la inadecuada utilización de la función de consumo en sus modelos y su inhabilidad de producir predicciones acertadas del nivel futuro de ingreso. Sin embargo, a pesar de sus críticas, Friedman y Becker (1957) inconscientemente terminaron contribuyendo de forma importante a la modelización macroeconométrica keynesiana, anticipando, por un lado, la diseminación de un método para la evaluación del desempeño de los modelos keynesianos y, por otro lado, el rol que la dinámica jugaría en la construcción de este tipo de modelos. El método anticipado fue la simulación completa de modelos, más tarde convertida en la rutinaria simulación dinámica computarizada. Este artículo cuenta la historia de las discusiones tempranas sobre la evaluación del desempeño de los modelos macroeconométricos keynesianos y la forma en que las ideas sobre la dinámica entraron en la discusión de la modelización macroeconométrica.

In this disseration, I place macroeconometric modeling at the center of the history of twentieth century macroeconomics, i. e. as e history of macroeconometrics, and ask two central questions : (1) What exactly were the objectives and the forces driving the development of macroeconometric modeling, and what kind of tools and institutions did macroeconomists build to observe, understand, and control the US postwar economy ? (2) What were the effects that the construction and use of these tools had on the production of macroeconomic knowledge ? Taking Lawrence R. Klein as a vehicle, I travel accross the economics discipline of the 1940s and 1950s, and study the intersection between the history of macroeconomics and the history of econometrics, providing a new understanding of twentieth century economics as a "tooled" discipline, in which theory (economy and statistical), application, expertise, and policy become embedded within one scientific tool : a macroeconometric model. Consequently, I present the history of macroeconomics not as the product of monolithic ideological and purely theoretical issues, but rather of divergent epistemological views and modeling strategies that go back to the debates between US-Walrasian and US-Marshallian approaches to empirical macroeconomics in which macroeconometric modeling from the heart of macroeconometrics. My thesis is that Klein what the most important figure in the creation of a new way to produce scientific knowledge that consisted in the construction and use of compex tools (macroeconometric models) within specific institutional configurations (econometric labotories) and for explicit policy and scientific objectives, in which well-defined roles of experts (scientific teams) were embodied within a new scientific practice (macroeconometric modeling). ; Cette thèse, dont l'objectif est de faire prévaloir l'importance de la macro-économétrie dans l'histoire de la macro-économie, s'articule autour de deux questions centrales : (1) Quelles ont été les forces et les objectif qui ont motivé le développement de la modélisation macro-économétrique et quelle est la nature des outils et des institutions que les macro-économistes ont construit pour observer, comprendre et contrôler l'économie d'après-guerre aux États-Unis , (2) Quels ont été les effets de la construction et de l'utilisation de tels outils dans la production du savoir macro-économique ? En considérant Lawrence R. Klein comme une figure centrale, je parcours la discipline économique des années 1940-1950 en me focalisant sur l'intersection entre l'histoire de la macro-économie et celle de l'économétrie, et ainsi, je propose une nouvelle vision de 'économie du vingtième siècle en tant que discipline "saisie par les outils", dans laquelle la théorie (économique et statistique), l'application, l'expertise et la politique s'incorporent dans un même outil scientifique : un model macro-économétrique. j'expose donc l'histoire de la macro-économie non pas comme le produit des questions idéologiques monolithiques ou purement théoriques, mais plutôt comme le produit des visions épistémologiques et de stratégies de modélisation divergentes qui remontent aux débats entre les approches empiriques de la macro-économie étatunienne et les méthodologies Walrasienne et Marshallienne. Ainsi, je soutiens la thèse que Klein a été le personnage principal dans la création d'une nouvelle manière de produire le savoir macro-économique qui, à travers la construction et l'utilisation d'outils complexes (modèles macro-économétriques) mis en place au sein d'une configuration institutionnelle spécifique (laboratoires économétriques), poursuivait des objectifs explicites de politique économique, et par laquelle les rôles bien définis des experts (équipes scientifiques) étaient intégrées à une nouvelle pratique scientifique : la modélisation macro-économique.

Lawrence R. Klein (1920-2013) played a major role in the construction and in the further dissemination of econometrics from the 1940s. Considered as one of the main developers and practitioners of macroeconometrics, Klein's influence is reflected in his application of econometric modelling " to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies " for which he was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1980. The purpose of this paper is to give an account of Klein's image of econometrics focusing on his early period as an econometrician (1944-1950), and more specifically on his period as a Cowlesman (1944-1947). Independently of how short this period might appear, it contains a set of fundamental publications and events, which were decisive for Klein's conception of econometrics, and which formed Klein's unique way of doing econometrics. At least four features are worth mentioning, which characterise this uniqueness. First, Klein was the only Cowlesman who carried on the macroeconometric programme beyond the 1940s, even if the Cowles had already abandoned it. Second, his pluralistic approach in terms of economic theory allowed him not only to use the Walrasian framework appraised by the Cowles Commission and especially by T.C. Koopmans, but also the Marxian and Keynesian frameworks, enriching the process of model specification and motivating economists of different stripes to make use of the nascent econometrics. Third, Klein differentiated himself from the rigid methodology praised at Cowles; while the latter promoted the use of highly sophisticated methods of estimation, Klein was convinced that institutional reality and economic intuition would contribute more to econometrics than the sophistication of these statistical techniques. Last but not least, Klein never gave up what he thought was the political objective of econometrics: economic planning and social reform.

This paper discusses a longstanding debate between two empirical approaches to macroeconomics: the econometrics program represented by Lawrence R. Klein, and the statistical economics program represented by Milton Friedman. I argue that the differences between these two approaches do not consist in the use of different statistical methods, economic theories or political ideas. Rather, these differences are deeply rooted in methodological principles and modeling strategies inspired by the works of Léon Walras and Alfred Marshall, which go further than the standard opposition of general vs. partial equilibrium. While Klein's Walrasian approach necessarily considers the economy as a whole, despite the economist's inability to observe or understand the system in all its complexity, Friedman's Marshallian approach takes into account this inability and considers that economic models should be perceived as a way to construct systems of thought based on the observation of specific and smaller parts of the economy.

This paper discusses a longstanding debate between two empirical approaches to macroeconomics: the econometrics program represented by Lawrence R. Klein, and the statistical economics program represented by Milton Friedman. I argue that the differences between these two approaches do not consist in the use of different statistical methods, economic theories or political ideas. Rather, these differences are deeply rooted in methodological principles and modeling strategies inspired by the works of Léon Walras and Alfred Marshall, which go further than the standard opposition of general vs. partial equilibrium. While Klein's Walrasian approach necessarily considers the economy as a whole, despite the economist's inability to observe or understand the system in all its complexity, Friedman's Marshallian approach takes into account this inability and considers that economic models should be perceived as a way to construct systems of thought based on the observation of specific and smaller parts of the economy.

A review of Andrés Álvarez and Juan Santiago Correa's book on the history of political and economic ideas in Colombia during the first century of the republic.

This paper discusses a longstanding debate between two empirical approaches to macroeconomics: the econometrics program represented by Lawrence R. Klein, and the statistical economics program represented by Milton Friedman. I argue that the differences between these two approaches do not consist in the use of different statistical methods, economic theories or political ideas. Rather, these differences are deeply rooted in methodological principles and modeling strategies inspired by the works of Léon Walras and Alfred Marshall, which go further than the standard opposition of general vs. partial equilibrium. While Klein's Walrasian approach necessarily considers the economy as a whole, despite the economist's inability to observe or understand the system in all its complexity, Friedman's Marshallian approach takes into account this inability and considers that economic models should be perceived as a way to construct systems of thought based on the observation of specific and smaller parts of the economy.

Lawrence R. Klein (1920-2013) played a major role in the construction and in the further dissemination of econometrics from the 1940s. Considered as one of the main developers and practitioners of macroeconometrics, Klein's influence is reflected in his application of econometric modelling " to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies " for which he was awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1980. The purpose of this paper is to give an account of Klein's image of econometrics focusing on his early period as an econometrician (1944-1950), and more specifically on his period as a Cowlesman (1944-1947). Independently of how short this period might appear, it contains a set of fundamental publications and events, which were decisive for Klein's conception of econometrics, and which formed Klein's unique way of doing econometrics. At least four features are worth mentioning, which characterise this uniqueness. First, Klein was the only Cowlesman who carried on the macroeconometric programme beyond the 1940s, even if the Cowles had already abandoned it. Second, his pluralistic approach in terms of economic theory allowed him not only to use the Walrasian framework appraised by the Cowles Commission and especially by T.C. Koopmans, but also the Marxian and Keynesian frameworks, enriching the process of model specification and motivating economists of different stripes to make use of the nascent econometrics. Third, Klein differentiated himself from the rigid methodology praised at Cowles; while the latter promoted the use of highly sophisticated methods of estimation, Klein was convinced that institutional reality and economic intuition would contribute more to econometrics than the sophistication of these statistical techniques. Last but not least, Klein never gave up what he thought was the political objective of econometrics: economic planning and social reform.

We study the construction of the macroeconometric model of the Committee on Economic Stability (CES) of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) in the early 1960s using the CES's archival records. Building this model was central not only to set the bases for the subsequent construction of other models such as the Brookings Model (1963-1972) and the FRB-MIT-Penn model (1966-1974) but also to consolidating large-scale macroeconometric modeling as a scientific practice at the frontier of macroeconomics in the 1960s. We provide a detailed account of the complex establishment of the Committee and argue that the organization of the CES was the response of an important group of economists concerned about the instability of the US economy and wanting to develop new methods with the "widest possible degree of acceptance" to understand concrete fluctuations of the economy and to act upon them to maintain stability. As the first model-building enterprise of this size, the project's many challenges in terms of logistics, data, and computing capacity, evidence the importance of configuring a specific institutional and material context necessary to develop this new scientific practice. In this sense, we discuss the functioning and management of this ambitious project and, in particular, the structure and organization of the team in charge of the model (or "federation of research projects"), which was structured around more than 20 researchers based in different locations. We argue that the CES was successful in bringing together academics and people from government agencies and in the very practical purpose of producing, collecting, centralizing, and managing data for the purpose of generating quantitative policy analysis.