The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Models

  • Mary S. Morgan
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2171

Abstract

Philosophical analysis of the historical development of modelling, as well as the programmatic statements of the founders of modelling, support three different functions for modelling: for fitting theories to the world; for theorizing; and as instruments of investigation. Rather than versions of data or of theories, models can be understood as complex objects constructed out of many resources that defy simple description. These accounts also suggest a kinship between the ways models work in economics and various kinds of experiment, found most obviously in simulation but equally salient in older traditions of mathematical and statistical modelling.

Keywords

Business cycles Caricatures Correspondence rules Cowles Commission Design of experiments Econometrics Economic man Edgeworth, F.Y Experiments and econometrics Fisher, I Friedman, M Frisch, R.A.K Haavelmo, T Ideal type Instrumentalism Idealization Inference Koopmans. T.C Laboratory experiments in economics Lucas, R Macroeconometric models Matching Mathematical economics Mathematics and economics Metaphor Methodology of economics Mill, J.S Marshall, A Model design Models Model construction Model functions Model experiments National Bureau of Economic Research Pigou, A.C Prediction Probability Quesnay, F Random shock models Shubik, M Simulation Slutsky, E Sutton, J Statistical inference Statistics and economics Tableau économique Tendency laws Testing Tinbergen, J Weber, M 

JEL Classification

B4 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Adelman, I., and F.L. Adelman. 1959. The dynamic properties of the Klein–Goldberger model. Econometrica 27: 596–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backhouse, R.E. 1998. The transformation of U.S. economics, 1920–1960. In From interwar pluralism to postwar neoclassicism, Annual Supplement to History of Political Economy, vol. 30, ed. M.S. Morgan and M. Rutherford. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bodkin, R.G., L.R. Klein, and K. Marwah. 1991. A history of macroeconometric model-building. Aldershot: Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Boltzmann, L. 1911. Models. In Encyclopaedia britannica, 11th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boumans, M. 1993. Paul Ehrenfest and Jan Tinbergen: A case of limited physics transfer. In Non-natural social science: Reflecting on the enterprise of more heat than light, ed. N. De Marchi. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boumans, M. 1997. Lucas and artificial worlds. In New economics and its history, ed. J.B. Davis. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boumans, M. 1999. Built-in justification. In Models as mediators, ed. M.S. Morgan and M. Morrison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boumans, M. 2005. How economists model the world to numbers. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boumans, M., and M.S. Morgan. 2001. Ceteris paribus conditions: Materiality and the application of economic theories. Journal of Economic Methodology 8: 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boumans, M., and M.S. Morgan. 2004. Secrets hidden by two-dimensionality: The economy as a hydraulic machine. In Models: The third dimension of science, ed. S. de Chadarevian and N. Hopwood. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bridgeman, P. 1927. The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Cartwright, N. 1989. Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Charles, L. 2004. The Tableau économique as rational recreation. History of Political Economy 36: 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarkson, G.P.E., and H.A. Simon. 1960. Simulation of individual and group behaviour. American Economic Review 50: 920–932.Google Scholar
  15. Darity, W., and W. Young. 1995. IS–LM: An inquest. History of Political Economy 27: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Den Butter, F., and M.S. Morgan. 2000. Empirical models and policy making: Interaction and institutions. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duesenberry, J.S., O. Eckstein, and G. Fromm. 1960. A simulation of the United States economy in recession. Econometrica 28: 749–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein, R.J. 1987. A history of econometrics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, I. 1892. Mathematical investigations in the theory of value and prices. Yale University thesis, repr. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, M. 1953. Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frisch, R. 1933. Propagation and impulse problems in dynamic economics. In Economic essays in honour of Gustav Cassel. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Gibbard, A., and H.R. Varian. 1978. Economic models. Journal of Philosophy 75: 664–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gordon, S. 1991. The history and philosophy of social science. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guala, F. 2001. Building economic machines: The FCC auctions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32: 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haavelmo, T. 1944. The probability approach in econometrics. Econometrica 12(Supplement): iii–iv. 1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamminga, B. 1998. Poznań approach. In Handbook of economic methodology, ed. J.B. Davis, D. Wade Hands, and U. Mäki. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Hamminga, B., and N. De Marchi (eds.). 1994. Idealization in economics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  28. Hausman, D.M. (ed.). 1984. The philosophy of economics: An anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hausman, D.M. 1990. Supply and demand explanations and their ceteris paribus clauses. Review of Political Economy 2: 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hausman, D.M. 1992. The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heckman, J. 2000. Causal parameters and policy analysis in economics: A twentieth century retrospective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 45–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hirsch, A., and N. De Marchi. 1990. Milton friedman: Economics in theory and practice. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoover, K.D. 1994. Econometrics as observation: The Lucas critique and the nature of econometric inference. Journal of Economic Methodology 1: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Humphrey, T.M. 1996. The early history of the box diagram. Federal Reserve Board of Richmond Economic Review 82(1): 37–75.Google Scholar
  35. Ingrao, B., and G. Israel. 1987. The invisible hand: Economic equilibrium in the history of science. Trans. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press McGilvray, 1990.Google Scholar
  36. Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  37. Koopmans, T. 1957. Three essays on the state of economic science. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Krugman, P. 1993. How I work. American Economist 37(2): 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Le Gall, P. 2007. A history of econometrics in France: From nature to models. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leeson, R. 2000. A.W.H. Phillips: Collected works in contemporary perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lucas, R.E. 1980. Methods and problems in business cycle theory. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 12: 696–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mäki, U. 1992. On the method of isolation ineconomics. In Idealization IV: Intelligibility in science, ed. C. Dilworth. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  43. Mäki, U. (ed.). 2002. Fact and fiction in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mäki, M. (ed.). 2007. The methodology of positive economics: Milton Friedman’s essay fifty years later. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Marshall, A.W. 1890. Principles of economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan. 1930.Google Scholar
  46. McMullin, E. 1985. Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morgan, M.S. 1990. The history of econometric ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, M.S. 2001. Models, stories and the economic world. Journal of Economic Methodology 8: 361–84. Repr. in Mäki (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgan, M.S. 2002. Model experiments and models in experiments. In Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values, ed. L. Magnani and N. Nersessian. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  50. Morgan, M.S. 2004a. Imagination and imaging in economic model-building. Philosophy of Science 71: 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan, M.S. 2004b. Simulation: The birth of a technology to create ‘evidence’ in economics. Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 57: 341–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morgan, M.S. 2006. Economic man as model man: Ideal types, idealization and caricatures. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morgan, M.S. 2007. The curious case of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: Model situation? Exemplary narrative? In Science without laws: Model systems, cases, and exemplary narratives, ed. A. Creager, E. Lunbeck, and N. Wise. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Morgan, M.S. 2008. The world in the model.Google Scholar
  55. Morgan, M.S., and M. Morrison. 1999. Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Morrison, M., and M.S. Morgan. 1999. Models as mediating instruments. In Morgan and Morrison.Google Scholar
  57. Nowak, L. 1994. The idealization methodology and econometrics. In Hamminga and De Marchi.Google Scholar
  58. Orcutt, G.H. 1960. Simulation of economic systems. American Economic Review 50: 893–907.Google Scholar
  59. Pigou, A.C. 1929. The function of economic analysis. The Sidney Ball Lecture, University of Oxford, May. In Economic essays and addresses, ed. D.H. Robertson. London: P.S. King. 1931.Google Scholar
  60. Qin, D. 1993. The formation of econometrics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rappaport, S. 1998. Models and reality in economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  62. Robbins, L. 1932. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Robinson, J. 1933. The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Samuelson, P.A. 1939. Interactions between the multiplier analysis and the principle of acceleration. Review of Economics and Statistics 21: 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shubik, M. 1959. Strategy and market structure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Shubik, M. 1960a. Bibliography on simulation, gaming, artificial intelligence and allied topics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 55: 736–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shubik, M. 1960b. Simulation of the industry and the firm. American Economic Review 50: 908–919.Google Scholar
  68. Slutsky, E.E. 1927. The summation of random causes as the source of cycle processes. Econometrica 5(1937): 105–146.Google Scholar
  69. Sugden, R. 2000. Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 7: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sutton, J. 2000. Marshall’s tendencies: What can economists know? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tinbergen, J. 1937. An econometric approach to business cycle problems. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  72. Tinbergen, J. 1939. Statistical testing of business cycle theories. Geneva: League of Nations.Google Scholar
  73. Von Thünen, J.H. 1826. Der Isolierte Staat. Hamburg: Perthes. Trans. C. Wartenberg as Von Thünen’s isolated state. Oxford: Pergamon, 1966.Google Scholar
  74. Weber, M. 1904. ‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy. In The methodology of the social sciences. Trans. and ed. E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch. New York: Free Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  75. Weber, M. 1913. The theory of social and economic organisations, Trans. A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons as Part I of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. New York: Free Press, 1947.Google Scholar
  76. Weintraub, E.R. 2002. How economics became a mathematical science. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary S. Morgan
    • 1
  1. 1.