Suchergebnisse

This dissertation provides a history of macroeconomic modeling practices from RobertE. Lucas's works in the 1970s up to today's dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) approach. Working from a historical perspective, I suggest that the recent rise of DSGE models should be characterized as a compromise between opposing views of modeling methodology—on the one hand, the real business cycle (RBC) view, on the other hand, the new Keynesian view. In order to justify this claim, my work provides an epistemological reconstruction of the recent history of macroeconomics, building from ananalysis of the criteria defining the validity and the pertinence of a model. My assumption is that recent macroeconomic modeling practices can be described by three distinctive methodological criteria : the internal validity criterion (which establishes the consistency between models' assumptions and concepts and formalisms of a theory), the external validity criterion (which establishes the consistency between the assumptions and results of a model and the real world, as well as the quantitative methods needed to assess such a consistency) and the hierarchization criterion (which establishes the preference for internal over external validity, or vice versa). This epistemological reconstruction draws primarily from the literature about models in the philosophy of science. My work aims to make four contributions to the history of recent macroeconomics. (1) To understand the rise of DSGE models without referring to the explanation providedby the macroeconomists themselves, who tend to think that macroeconomics evolved through theoretical consensus and exogenous technical progress. By distancing itself fromthis perspective, my work draws attention to the disruptive character of methodological controversies and to the interdependence between theoretical activity and the developmentof statistical and econometric methods. (2) To overcome the existing divide betweenthe history of macroeconomic theories and the history of quantitative methods. Throughits epistemological perspective, my work reconciles these two historiographies and specifiesthe basis for a comprehensive understanding of recent developments in macroeconomics.(3) To put the accent on the external validity condition as the main controversial issue separating different views of macro-modeling methodology. Furthermore, I illustrate how the debate about external validity is closely related to the problem of casual explanation and, finally, to the conditions for providing economic policy evaluation. (4) To characterize the DSGE approach: although DSGE models are often presented as a"synthesis", or as a "consensus", they are better described as a shaky compromise between two opposing methodological visions. ; Ce travail propose une mise en perspective des pratiques de modélisation macroéconomique,depuis les travaux de Robert E. Lucas dans les années 1970 jusqu'aux contributions actuelles de l'approche dite d'équilibre général dynamique stochastique (DSGE). Cette mise en perspective permet de caractériser l'essor des modèles DSGE comme un compromis entre conceptions antagonistes de la modélisation : d'une part, celle de l'approche des cycles réels (RBC) et, d'autre part, celle de la nouvelle économie keynésienne. Pour justifier cette opposition, ce travail propose une reconstruction épistémologique de l'histoire récente de la macroéconomie, à savoir une analyse des différents critères qui définissent la validité et la pertinence d'un modèle. L'hypothèse de travail est qu'on peut identifier, pour chaque pratique de modélisation,trois critères méthodologiques fondamentaux : la validité interne (l'adéquation des hypothèses d'un modèle aux concepts aux formalismes d'une théorie), la validité externe(l'adéquation des hypothèses et/ou des résultats d'un modèle au monde réel, et les procédés quantitatifs pour évaluer cette adéquation) et le critère de hiérarchie (la préférence pour la validité interne sur la validité externe, ou vice versa). Cette grille de lecture, inspirée de la littérature sur les modèles en philosophie des sciences, permet d'apporter quatre contributions originales à l'histoire de la macroéconomie récente. (1) Elle permet de concevoir l'essor des modèles DSGE sans faire appel à l'explication proposée par l'historiographie produite par les macroéconomistes eux-mêmes,à savoir l'existence d'un consensus et d'un progrès technique exogène. Contre cette vision de l'histoire en termes de progrès scientifique, nous mettons en avant les oppositions méthodologiques au sein de la macroéconomie et nous illustrons l'interdépendance entre activité théorique et développement des méthodes statistiques et économétriques. (2) La thèse s'attaque au cloisonnement entre histoire des théories macroéconomiques et histoire des méthodes quantitatives. Grâce à sa perspective méthodologique, ce travail permet d'opérer la jonction entre ces deux littératures et de développer les bases d'une vision globale des transformations récentes de la macroéconomie. (3) La relecture méthodologique de l'histoire de la modélisation permet de mettre en évidence comment la condition de validité externe a représenté le principal point de clivage entre différentes conceptions de la modélisation. La question de la validité externe apparaît par ailleurs intrinsèquement liée à la question de l'explication causale des phénomènes, sur laquelle repose largement la justification de la modélisation comme outil d'expertise des politiques économiques. (4) Ce travail aboutit à une caractérisation originale de l'approche DSGE : loin de constituer une «synthèse» ou un consensus, cette approche s'apparente à un compromis, fragilisé par l'antagonisme méthodologique entre ses parties prenantes.

L'International Seminar on Macroeconomics (ISoM) est une conférence annuelle co-financée, pendant 15 ans (1978-1993), par l'EHESS et le NBER. Cet article expose les dynamiques institutionnelles et scientifiques sous-jacentes à cette coopération. Nous suggérons que les macroéconomistes rassemblés par l'ISoM contribuèrent grandement à la constitution d'un réseau européen d'économistes, partageant certains standards intellectuels et professionnels. Nous montrons que l'ISoM se situait au croisement de deux types d'« internationalisation » de l'économie : l'intégration au niveau européen des communautés de recherche nationales, ainsi qu'un processus d'« américanisation » de la discipline. Alors que la littérature existante sur l'« internationalisation » se concentre plutôt sur le niveau national, notre article étudie ce processus à l'échelle européenne. À cet égard, nous mettons en évidence le rôle clé joué par deux programmes de recherches en macroéconomie : la modélisation macroéconométrique à grande échelle et la théorie du déséquilibre.

Purpose: Subcutaneous injections, or "fillers," are used illicitly and in large quantities by trans women for feminization. They are associated with severe complications, but data on their use are limited, especially in places with widespread access to safe gender-affirming care. Our analysis seeks to assess the prevalence, correlates, and complications of filler use to inform prevention and treatment. Methods: A secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data from the Trans* National Study conducted from May 2016 to December 2017 of 631 adult trans women in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, recruited using respondent-driven sampling. Results: Around 65/631 participants (10.3%) reported filler use. Filler use was highest among Latinas (21.3% vs. 3.8% among whites, p<0.001), high school graduates (22.6% vs. 1.7% among college graduates, p<0.001), and those with a history of being undocumented (31.7% vs. 16.3% among documented immigrants and 6.4% among U.S. natives, p<0.001). Filler users had higher odds of engaging in sex work ever (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, p<0.001) and in the last 6 months (OR 2.00, p=0.049). The majority of filler users (78.5%) reported a physical complication, including infectious and inflammatory responses, coagulopathies, and neuropathies. Conclusion: Filler use was high among participants, despite availability of gender-affirming care and prevalence of complications. Filler use was highest among those with social, economic, and political vulnerabilities. Thus, filler use might be associated with structural factors that reduce access to safer methods of feminization. Addressing these factors, increasing access to safe gender-affirming care, and developing protocols for filler-related complications are needed.

The International Seminar on Macroeconomics (ISoM) is an annual conference, which was co-sponsored, during 15 years (1978-1993) by the French EHESS and the NBER. This article uncovers the scientific and institutional dynamics unrolling from this cooperation. The ISoM, we argue, constituted a decisive step towards the making of a European network of economists, sharing a distinctive style of economics, insofar that the Seminar gathered macroeconomists who were leading the development of this European network. We illustrate how the ISoM stands at the crossroad of two types of 'internationalisation' of economics: on the one hand, the integration of European national communities; on the other hand, the process of 'Americanisation' of economics. While existing literature on 'internationalisation' focuses on the national level, our contribution investigates its European level. Moreover, we unveils the key role played in this process by macroeconomics - and more specifically, large-scale macroeconometric modelling on the one hand, and the disequilibrium theory on the other hand. These two approaches provided a common research agenda and shared scientific standards for the emerging network.

The standard history of macroeconomics considers Lucas (1976)– "the Lucas Critique"–as a path-breaking innovation for the discipline. According to this view Lucas's article dismissed the traditional macroeconometric practice calling for new ways of conceiving the quantitative evaluation of economic policies. The Lucas Critique is considered, nowadays, as a fundamental principle of macroeconomic modeling (Woodford, 2003). The interpretation and the application of the Critique, however, represent still unsolved issues in economics (Chari et al., 2008). Even if the influence of Lucas's contribution cannot be neglected, something seems to be missing in the narrative: the reactions of the economists that were directly targeted by the Critique. Modeling practices of economic policy evaluation were not overthrown immediately after Lucas (1976), creating a divide between theoretical and applied macroeconomics (Brayton et al., 1997). In the first section we propose a careful account of Lucas's argument and of some of the previous works anticipating the substantial outline of the Critique (like Frisch's notion of autonomy). Second, we bring our own interpretation of Lucas (1976). We find two points of view in Lucas's paper: a prescriptive one that tell how to build a good macroeconometric model (it is the standard interpretation of the article); a positive one that relies on the fact that the Lucas critique could be seen as an attempt to explain a real-world phenomenon: stagflation. Third, we classify the reactions of the Keynesian macroeconometricians following this line of interpretation. On the prescriptive side, the Keynesians protested against the New Classical solution to the Lucas critique (the use of the rational expectation hypothesis among other things). Klein, for instance, proposed an alternative microfoundational program to empirically study the formation of expectations. On the positive side, the Keynesians put into question the relevance of the Lucas Critique to explain the rise of both unemployment and inflation in the 1970s. They tried to test the impact of policy regime changes and of shifts in agents' behavior. We argue that the explanation of the stagflation was elsewhere. The purpose of this paper is to study the reactions of the macroeconometricians criticized by Lucas. We focus especially on those macroeconometricians who worked on policy evaluation and who held an expertise position in governmental institutions. We categorize the different reactions to the Critique, in order to enrich the understanding of the evolution of modeling and expertise practices through the analysis of the debates–which have not yet been completely solved.

The standard history of macroeconomics considers Lucas (1976)– "the Lucas Critique"–as a path-breaking innovation for the discipline. According to this view Lucas's article dismissed the traditional macroeconometric practice calling for new ways of conceiving the quantitative evaluation of economic policies. The Lucas Critique is considered, nowadays, as a fundamental principle of macroeconomic modeling (Woodford, 2003). The interpretation and the application of the Critique, however, represent still unsolved issues in economics (Chari et al., 2008). Even if the influence of Lucas's contribution cannot be neglected, something seems to be missing in the narrative: the reactions of the economists that were directly targeted by the Critique. Modeling practices of economic policy evaluation were not overthrown immediately after Lucas (1976), creating a divide between theoretical and applied macroeconomics (Brayton et al., 1997). In the first section we propose a careful account of Lucas's argument and of some of the previous works anticipating the substantial outline of the Critique (like Frisch's notion of autonomy). Second, we bring our own interpretation of Lucas (1976). We find two points of view in Lucas's paper: a prescriptive one that tell how to build a good macroeconometric model (it is the standard interpretation of the article); a positive one that relies on the fact that the Lucas critique could be seen as an attempt to explain a real-world phenomenon: stagflation. Third, we classify the reactions of the Keynesian macroeconometricians following this line of interpretation. On the prescriptive side, the Keynesians protested against the New Classical solution to the Lucas critique (the use of the rational expectation hypothesis among other things). Klein, for instance, proposed an alternative microfoundational program to empirically study the formation of expectations. On the positive side, the Keynesians put into question the relevance of the Lucas Critique to explain the rise of both unemployment and inflation in the 1970s. They tried to test the impact of policy regime changes and of shifts in agents' behavior. We argue that the explanation of the stagflation was elsewhere. The purpose of this paper is to study the reactions of the macroeconometricians criticized by Lucas. We focus especially on those macroeconometricians who worked on policy evaluation and who held an expertise position in governmental institutions. We categorize the different reactions to the Critique, in order to enrich the understanding of the evolution of modeling and expertise practices through the analysis of the debates–which have not yet been completely solved.