The Rhetoric of Economics: Deirdre McCloskey's Critique of Economic Modernism
In her influential 1985 work, The Rhetoric of Economics, Deirdre McCloskey challenges the trajectory of modern economic thought. While she acknowledges that the mathematization of economics—the application of mathematical methods to economic theory—was a positive development, she argues that the field has drifted into a state of "economic modernism." This shift, she contends, has prioritized abstract model-building and complex econometrics over the pursuit of true, interesting statements about the real world.
The Conflict Between Models and Reality
McCloskey suggests that the profession has taken equilibrium model-building and econometrics to an absurd extreme. She specifically critiques the reliance on existence-theorems (mathematical proofs that a solution exists under certain conditions) and a narrow focus on statistical significance. According to McCloskey, proving that an effect is hypothetically possible within an analytical framework does not constitute a constructive way of understanding actual economic behavior.
A primary point of contention is the role of econometric analysis, which is the conventional method used to link economic models to real-world data. McCloskey points out a systemic flaw: she cites numerous instances where econometrics professors used the same datasets to both prove and disprove the conclusions of a single model. Consequently, she argues that the immense effort economists spend on analytical equations is largely wasted.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]The Architects of Economic Modernism
In her essay "Ask What the Boys in the Sandbox Will Have," McCloskey identifies three key figures from the 1940s whom she believes led the discipline astray. She attributes specific "vices" to their influence on the field:
- Paul Samuelson: McCloskey argues that Samuelson sought to make economics mirror the hard sciences, particularly physics. In doing so, he elevated "blackboard proofs"—mathematical demonstrations that may lack scientific grounding—as a primary value of the discipline.
- Lawrence Klein: As an econometrician, Klein is credited by McCloskey with fostering the mistake of confusing statistical significance (the likelihood that a result is not due to chance) with scientific significance (the actual importance or meaning of the result in the real world).
- Jan Tinbergen: McCloskey links Tinbergen to the vice of social engineering. She argues that this approach presumes a level of knowledge and control over society that is unrealistic, further elevating modernist methodology over other economic perspectives.
Academic Backlash and Legacy
McCloskey's critiques of the modern profession and the recipients of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel have sparked significant debate. Mainstream economists, including Kenneth Arrow, have vigorously defended the "Samuelson" approach. These defenders argue that a high volume of analytical mathematical models is not a distraction, but a critical requirement for the progress of the field.
Despite her sharp critiques, McCloskey clarifies that she recognizes the individual genius of Samuelson, Klein, and Tinbergen. She posits that the "vices" she describes were not necessarily created by these three men themselves, but were amplified and institutionalized by their students and subsequent generations of economists—including McCloskey herself.
Key Facts
- Core Argument: Economic modernism overemphasizes mathematical proofs and statistical significance over real-world truth.
- Key Publication: The Rhetoric of Economics (1985).
- Critiqued Figures: Paul Samuelson (blackboard proofs), Lawrence Klein (statistical vs. scientific significance), and Jan Tinbergen (social engineering).
- Mainstream View: Figures like Kenneth Arrow argue that mathematical modeling is essential for economic progress.
| Figure | Associated "Vice" | Impact on Economics |
|---|---|---|
| Paul Samuelson | Blackboard Proofs | Attempted to mimic physics; prioritized mathematical values over scientific ones. |
| Lawrence Klein | Statistical Confusion | Confused statistical significance with scientific significance. |
| Jan Tinbergen | Social Engineering | Presumed excessive knowledge of social control via modernist methodology. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is "economic modernism" according to Deirdre McCloskey?
Economic modernism refers to the tendency in economics to prioritize equilibrium model-building, existence-theorems, and econometrics over the pursuit of practical, true statements about the real world.
Why does McCloskey criticize the use of econometrics?
She argues that econometrics is often used inconsistently, noting that the same data can be used by experts to both support and refute the same model's conclusions, rendering much of the analytical effort wasted.
What is the difference between statistical and scientific significance?
Statistical significance refers to whether a result is mathematically unlikely to have occurred by chance, whereas scientific significance refers to whether that result has a meaningful or important impact on the real world.
How did the economic mainstream respond to McCloskey's views?
Mainstream economists, such as Kenneth Arrow, defended the mathematical approach, asserting that analytical models are necessary for the discipline to advance.
Does McCloskey believe the founders of modern economics were without merit?
No. She acknowledges the genius of Samuelson, Klein, and Tinbergen, suggesting that the flaws in the discipline were perpetuated by their followers rather than the men themselves.