Suchergebnisse

The period 1895–1925 saw the origins and establishment of the fields that came to be called econometrics and psychometrics. I consider what these fields owed to biometry—the statistical approach to the biological problems of evolution—and make some comparisons between all three. I emphasize developments in biology and psychology, for these are less familiar to historians of econometrics. These developments are interesting to contemplate, for the biometricians and psychometricians were already discussing issues associated with the respective roles of statistical analysis and of subject matter theory, issues that became prominent in econometrics only much later.

In Japan the systematic collection of economic data, including the prices of such commodities as rice, started for policy purposes in the sixteenth century. Yet such external impacts as the Tokyo meeting of the International Statistical Institute (1930) and the visit of two founding members of the Econometric Society (established 1930) to Japan were instrumental in promoting statistical studies and inspiring Japanese students to study abroad. Eiichi Sugimoto was trained in Berlin and drew a shifting demand curve for rice over time in a three-dimensional space in 1935. After World War II, Shinichi Ichimura, Michio Hatanaka, and Takeshi Amemiya were trained in the United States and introduced to empirical studies. Ichimura became responsible for building macroeconometric models and input-output tables for the Japanese and other East Asian economies. Hatanaka and Amemiya contributed to a more advanced econometrics thanks to the abundant use of U.S. economic data.

This essay studies the contribution of Ta-Chung Liu to econometrics by focusing on the models and methods of Liu's econometric practices from the 1950s to the 1970s. We document his development of an exploratory econometric approach, a development he effected by experimenting with tools and elements in the model-building process and which led him finally to accept the recursive methodology represented by Herman Wold. We also discuss Liu's theoretical and empirical concerns for econometric models that spurred his involvement in a series of debates against the Cowles Commission approach in the 1960s and 1970s, and we discuss his legacy to contemporary econometrics.

This essay examines the history of econometrics through a case study of the Phillips curve, that is, econometric modeling of the trade-off between inflation and unemployment. It focuses on a number of questions: What econometric tools did modelers choose to use in modeling the Phillips curve? How did their choices shape the ways that they obtained, interpreted, and theorized the empirical evidence? How did the concerns and problems they encountered feed back into the development of econometrics? This study reveals that much of the interaction between econometrics and economics involved modelers making certain trade-offs between theory and data, and their different positions generated disputes, factions, and confusion. It also reveals that the history of econometric modeling of the Phillips curve mirrors the evolving process of how the Cowles structural modeling paradigm has become consolidated, challenged, reformed, or abandoned.

Best known as a Keynesian macroeconomist and monetary theorist, James Tobin was also actively engaged in empirical economics from his doctoral dissertation onward. His innovative combination of time-series data with household budget surveys in his 1947 dissertation and 1950 food demand study, and his 1955 and 1958 papers on limited dependent variables (Tobit estimation), were contributions to econometrics, not just the use of existing techniques by an applied economist. The present essay examines Tobin's involvement with econometrics from his student days "teaching myself econometrics" at Harvard to his later advocacy of an approach to empirical macroeconomic modeling based on his "general equilibrium approach to monetary theory" that contrasted sharply with new classical macroeconomic modeling that interpreted general equilibrium in a very different way.

The title hints at the attention given to the lack of probability considerations in the econometric work of the recognized pioneer of econometrics, Ragnar Frisch. Clues to a better understanding of his position may be found in his comprehensive archive and correspondence. This essay gives a brief overview of Frisch's scientific archive and exhibits from his search for econometric methods. It also sets out a selection of letters exchanged between Frisch and other leading members of the Econometric Society. Our contention is that Frisch's role in the history of econometrics has not been fully appreciated owing to insufficient access to sources.

With the famous numerical example of chapter 7 of the Principles (1817) David Ricardo intended to illustrate first and foremost the new proposition that his labor theory of value does not regulate the price of international transactions when the factors of production are immobile between countries. Unfortunately, later scholars have often omitted this proposition when referring to Ricardo's numerical example. Instead, they have highlighted only the comparative-advantage proposition, although Ricardo considered it as a corollary of the omitted proposition and therefore inextricably linked to it. This inexplicable omission has led to an incomplete understanding of the logical construction of Ricardo's numerical example, as well as to the misinterpretation of the four numbers as unitary labor costs. With an accurate understanding of Ricardo's numerical example and the logical relationship between the two propositions it meant to prove, it is relatively easy to refute the main objections that have been raised against the very same numerical example in the past. Moreover, it reaffirms the sustained relevance of Ricardo's two propositions as important insights for understanding the current process of economic globalization.

To understand the relationship between experimental and behavioral economics, we need to go back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the 1970s, psychologists began conducting new kinds of experiments, the results of which seemed to falsify the assumption of rational individual behavior. This compelled experimental economists to stake out a position for the economics discipline regarding the results. Much to their surprise, their experiments corroborated the results of the psychologists. This led them to completely discard preference theory but at the same time to emphasize the role of the market as the mechanism that rationalizes individual behavior. An initially diverse and unorganized group of financial and other economists drew very different conclusions from these same experimental results. They saw them as proof of observed anomalies in financial markets and hailed Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's prospect theory as the most important candidate for replacing the traditional microeconomic model of human behavior.

In the history of economic thought, Martin Luther is frequently identified with medieval Scholastic doctrine. His belief that "money is sterile" is offered in support of this assessment. However, this obscures the fact that Luther rarely invokes this line of reasoning in his writings on usury and that his argument for its immorality is not dependent upon the proposition. These facts, which differentiate Luther from the Scholastic writers, are consistent with his opposition to Aristotelian natural philosophy and the influence of nominalism on his thought. In order to establish the immorality of the census contract, condoned by the German Scholastic theologians, Luther reconstitutes the argument. The unappreciated significance of Luther's thought is therefore twofold: (1) there exists a burgeoning degree of independence between the positive analysis of usury and the reasons for its immorality; and (2) individual conscience and personal interpretation are left the arbiters in determining ethical practice.