Advertisement

Trust Them? The Epistemic Quality of Climate Economics

  • Martin Kowarsch
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 323)

Abstract

This chapter evaluates the scientific and epistemic quality of integrated assessment models (IAMs) and related economic studies in light of Deweyan-Putnamian pragmatism. This is mainly done by analysing the treatment of three different types of uncertainty (in a broad sense), explained in Sect. 9.1. Section 9.2 discusses technical and methodological uncertainties in IAM-based economic studies. Next, the fundamental methodology underlying IAM-based economic studies is critically discussed from an epistemological perspective, and some refinements are proposed from a Deweyan perspective (Sect. 9.3). The conclusion (Sect. 9.4) regarding the overall reliability of IAM-based results is neither that IAM-based studies provide us with absolutely true knowledge, nor that we, from an epistemological perspective, should completely disregard such economic results in policy-making. Instead, a more enlightened use of uncertainty-laden economic models including IAMs is the goal, based on a revision of economic methodology in light of Deweyan-Putnamian pragmatism. A critical reflection on the predominant viewpoints in economic methodology is indispensable because it is in a worrisome state; economists often cannot compellingly explain what their results mean from a philosophical-epistemological perspective. Pragmatism (Sect.  6.2) might help overcome the disorientation of current economic methodology in several regards, without returning to the dogmatism of positivist methodology.

Keywords

Climate Policy Logical Empiricism Epistemological Perspective Economic Methodology Methodological Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  2. Beckerman, Wilfred. 2011. Economics as applied ethics. Value judgements in welfare economics. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Betz, Gregor. 2007. Probabilities in climate policy advice: A critical comment. Climatic Change 85: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betz, Gregor. 2009. Underdetermination, model-ensembles and surprises: On the epistemology of scenario-analysis in climatology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaug, Mark. 1990. Economic theories, true or false? Essays in the history and methodology of economics. Hants: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Blaug, Mark. 1992. The methodology of economics: Or how economists explain, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodbeck, Karl-Heinz. 2011. Die Entwicklung der Ökonomik zur normativen Wissenschaft. In Handbuch Wirtschaftsethik, ed. Michael S. Aßländer, 43–52. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell, Bruce J. 1994. Beyond positivism. Economic methodology in the twentieth century, Rev. edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Caplin, Andrew, and Andrew Schotter (eds.). 2010. The foundations of positive and normative economics. A handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Creutzig, Felix, Christoph von Stechow, David Klein, Carol Hunsberger, Nico Bauer, Alexander Popp, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2012. Can bioenergy assessments deliver? Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 1(2): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, John B., D. Wade Hands, and Uskali Mäki (eds.). 1998. The handbook of economic methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Dunn, William. 1994. Public policy analysis: An introduction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Edenhofer, Ottmar, Kai Lessmann, Claudia Kemfert, Michael Grubb, and Jonathan Köhler. 2006. Induced technological change: Exploring its implications for the economics of atmospheric stabilization: Synthesis report from the innovation modeling comparison project. The Energy Journal, Special Issue: Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: 57–107.Google Scholar
  14. Edenhofer, Ottmar, Brigitte Knopf, Terry Barker, Lavinia Baumstark, Elie Bellevrat, Bertrand Chateau, and Patrick Criqui, et al. 2010. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 31, Special Issue 1: The Economics of Low Stabilization: 11–48.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, Bruno. 2001. Why economists disregard economic methodology. Journal of Economic Methodology 8(1): 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, Milton. 1970. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fullbrook, Edward. 2009. Epistemology. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene Staveren, 123–129. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Füssel, Hans-Martin, and Michael D. Mastrandrea. 2009. Integrated assessment of climate change. In Climate change science and policy, ed. Stephan H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, and Michael Mastrandrea, 150–161. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grunwald, Armin. 2008. Technik und Politikberatung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Hands, D. Wade. 2001. Reflection without rules. Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hands, D. Wade. 2004. Pragmatism, knowledge, and economic science. Deweyan pragmatic philosophy and contemporary economic methodology. In Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology, ed. Elias L. Khalil, 255–270. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hansson, Sven O. 2011. Risk. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Fall 2011 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/risk. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  24. Hausman, Daniel M. 2012. Philosophy of economics. In: Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Winter 2013 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/economics/. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.
  25. Hempel, Carl G. 1959. The empiricist criterion of meaning. In Logical positivism, ed. Alfred J. Ayer, 108–131. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hope, Chris. 2005. Integrated assessment models. In Climate-change policy, ed. Dieter Helm, 77–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. IPCC. Eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and Leo Meyer. 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. IPCC. Eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón P. Madruga, Youba Sokona, Kristin Seyboth, Patrick Matschoss, Susanne Kadner, Timm Zwickel, Patrick Eickemeier, Gerrit Hansen, Steffen Schlömer, and Christoph von Stechow. 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, David L., and Charles D. Kolstad. 1998. Integrated assessment models for climate change control. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/papers/wp31-98.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  30. Khalil, Elias L. (ed.). 2004a. Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Khalil, Elias L. 2004b. Introduction. John Dewey, the transactional view, and the behavioral sciences. In Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology, ed. Elias L. Khalil, 27–38. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kincaid, Harold, and Don Ross (eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Knutti, Reto. 2010. The end of model democracy? An editorial comment. Climatic Change 102: 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lehtinen, Aki. 2012. Introduction: Uskali Mäki’s realist philosophy of economics. In Economics for real: Uskali Mäki and the place of truth in economics, ed. Aki Lehtinen, Jaakko Kuorikoski, and Petri Ylikoski, 1–40. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Vanessa J. Schweizer. 2014. Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research. Synthese 191(10): 2049–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mäki, Uskali (ed.). 2012. Philosophy of economics. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Mastrandrea, Michael D., Katharine J. Mach, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Ottmar Edenhofer, Thomas F. Stocker, Christopher B. Field, Kristie L. Ebi, and Patrick R. Matschoss. 2011. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108: 675–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCloskey, Donald N. 1985. The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mooslechner, Peter, Helene Schuberth, and Martin Schürz (eds.). 2004. Economic policy under uncertainty: The role of truth and accountability in policy advice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  41. Nordhaus, William D. 2008. A question of balance: Weighing the options on global warming policies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Popper, Karl. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  43. Quine, Willard V.O. 1953. From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Reiss, Julian. 2013. Philosophy of economics: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Renn, Ortwin. 2008. Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Rosen, Richard A. 2015. IAMs and peer review. Correspondance. Nature Climate Change 5: 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taleb, Nassim N. 2010. The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable, 2nd ed. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  48. Tavoni, Massimo, and Richard S.J. Tol. 2010. Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy. A letter. Climatic Change 100(3–4): 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, Jennifer K. 2005. John Dewey and pragmatic economics. http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-04012005-080229/unrestricted/Dissertation.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2015.
  50. van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. 2002. A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. Futures 34: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Viskovatoff, Alex. 2004. A Deweyan economic methodology. In Dewey, pragmatism, and economic methodology, ed. Elias L. Khalil, 271–303. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kowarsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations