Economics
Arts & Sciences
Duke University
| |
Faculty Database Economics Arts & Sciences Duke University |
|
| HOME > Arts & Sciences > Economics > Faculty | Search Help Login |
|
| Publications of Kevin D. Hoover :chronological alphabetical combined listing:
%% Books
@book{fds371695,
Author = {Hartley, JE and Hoover, KD and Salyer, KD},
Title = {Real business cycles: A Reader},
Pages = {1-669},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781134694792},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203070710},
Abstract = {Real Business Cycle theory combines the remains of
monetarism with the new classical macroeconomics, and has
become one of the dominant approaches within contemporary
macroeconomics today. This volume presents: * the
authoritative anthology in RBC. The work contains the major
articles introducing and extending the theory as well as
critical literature * an extensive introduction which
contains an expository summary and critical evaluation of
RBC theory * comprehensive coverage and balance between
seminal papers and extensions; proponents and critics; and
theory and empirics. Macroeconomics is a compulsory element
in most economics courses, and this book will be an
essential guide to one of its major theories.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203070710},
Key = {fds371695}
}
@book{fds211896,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {Applied Intermediate Macroeconomics},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {An intermediate macroeconomics textbook that stresses using
real-world data and elementary statistics to understand the
economy.},
Key = {fds211896}
}
@book{fds211919,
Title = {Robert Solow and the Development of Growth
Economics},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Editor = {K.D. Hoover and Mauro Boianovsky},
Year = {2009},
Key = {fds211919}
}
%% Papers Published
@article{fds219757,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {The Role of Hypothesis Testing in the Molding of Econometric
Models},
Journal = {Erasmus Journal of Philosophy and Economics},
Year = {2013},
Month = {September},
Abstract = {This paper addresses the role of tests of statistical
hypotheses (specification tests) in selection of a
statistically admissible model in which to evaluate economic
hypotheses. The issue is formulated in the context of recent
philosophical accounts on the nature of models and related
to some results in the literature on specification
search.},
Key = {fds219757}
}
%% Papers Accepted
@article{fds200400,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {“Economic Theory and Causal Inference”},
Booktitle = {Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics; one volume of the
Handbook of the Philosophy of Science},
Editor = {Uskali Mäki (volume editor) and Dov Gabbay and Paul Thagard and John Woods (general},
Year = {2010},
Key = {fds200400}
}
%% Journal Articles
@article{fds373365,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Svorenčík, A},
Title = {Who Runs the AEA?},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Literature},
Volume = {61},
Number = {3},
Pages = {1127-1171},
Year = {2023},
Month = {September},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.20221667},
Abstract = {The leadership structure of the American Economic
Association is documented using a biographical database
covering every officer and losing candidate for AEA offices
from 1950 to 2019. The analysis focuses on institutional
affiliations by education and employment. The structure is
strongly hierarchical. A few institutions dominate the
leadership, and their dominance has become markedly stronger
over time. Broadly two types of explanations are explored:
that institutional dominance is based on academic merit or
that it is based on self-perpetuating privilege. Network
effects that might explain the dynamic of increasing
concentration are also investigated.},
Doi = {10.1257/jel.20221667},
Key = {fds373365}
}
@article{fds360551,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The struggle for the soul of macroeconomics},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {30},
Number = {2},
Pages = {80-89},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2010281},
Abstract = {Critics argued that the 2007–09 financial crisis was
failure of macroeconomics, locating its source in the
dynamic, stochastic general-equilibrium model and calling
for fundamental re-orientation of the field. Critics
exaggerated the role of DSGE models in actual policymaking,
and DSGE modelers addressed some criticisms within the DSGE
framework. But DSGE modelers oversold their success and even
claimed that their approach is the sine qua non of competent
macroeconomics. The DSGE modelers and their critics renew an
old debate over the relative priority of a priori theory and
empirical data, classically exemplified in the Measurement
without Theory Debate of the 1940s between the Cowles
Commission and the National Bureau of Economic Research. The
earlier debate is reviewed for its implications for the
recent controversy. In adopting the Cowles-Commission
position, some DSGE modelers would essentially
straight-jacket macroeconomics and undermine economic
science and the pursuit of knowledge in an open-minded, yet
critical framework.},
Doi = {10.1080/1350178X.2021.2010281},
Key = {fds360551}
}
@article{fds370306,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Models, truth, and analytic inference in
economics},
Pages = {119-144},
Year = {2022},
Month = {August},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003266051-11},
Doi = {10.4324/9781003266051-11},
Key = {fds370306}
}
@article{fds355665,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Erratum to: Hoover, k.d. 2020. the discovery of long-run
causal order: A preliminary investigation. econometrics 8:
31},
Journal = {Econometrics},
Volume = {9},
Number = {1},
Year = {2021},
Month = {March},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/econometrics9010007},
Abstract = {The author would like to make the following correction to
the article by Hoover (2020): The symbol “↦”, first
defined as “is weakly exogenous for” in the first line
of the third paragraph of Section 4.3, was inadvertently and
systematically converted in production to the symbol
“α”. Every instance in which symbol “α” is used to
denote weak exogeneity should be changed to “↦”. The
Editorial Office would like to apologize for any
inconvenience caused to the readers by this change. The
change does not affect the scientific results. The
manuscript will be updated and the original will remain
online on the article webpage.},
Doi = {10.3390/econometrics9010007},
Key = {fds355665}
}
@article{fds351431,
Author = {Wible, JR and Hoover, KD},
Title = {The economics of trade liberalization: Charles S. Peirce and
the Spanish Treaty of 1884},
Journal = {European Journal of the History of Economic
Thought},
Volume = {28},
Number = {2},
Pages = {229-248},
Year = {2021},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2020.1805483},
Abstract = {In the 1870 s and 1880 s, the scientist, logician, and
pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce possessed an
advanced knowledge of mathematical economics, having
mastered and criticised Cournot as early as 1871. In 1884 he
engaged in a multi-round debate with the editors of The
Nation over the economics of trade liberalisation in the
case of a proposed trade treaty with Spain concerning import
tariffs on Cuban and Puerto Rican sugar. While the
mathematical underpinings of Peirce’s intervention in the
debate are not explicit, they are evident in light of
Peirce’s unpublished writing on Cournot. The debate is
reconstructed and related carefully both to Peirce’s
understanding of mathematical economics and to his
philosophy of science. Peirce’s intervention is one of the
earliest intricate applications of mathematical economics to
public policy.},
Doi = {10.1080/09672567.2020.1805483},
Key = {fds351431}
}
@article{fds352545,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The discovery of long-run causal order: A preliminary
investigation},
Journal = {Econometrics},
Volume = {8},
Number = {3},
Pages = {1-24},
Year = {2020},
Month = {September},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/econometrics8030031},
Abstract = {The relation between causal structure and cointegration and
long-run weak exogeneity is explored using some ideas drawn
from the literature on graphical causal modeling. It is
assumed that the fundamental source of trending behavior is
transmitted from exogenous (and typically latent) trending
variables to a set of causally ordered variables that would
not themselves display nonstationary behavior if the
nonstationary exogenous causes were absent. The possibility
of inferring the long-run causal structure among a set of
time-series variables from an exhaustive examination of weak
exogeneity in irreducibly cointegrated subsets of variables
is explored and illustrated.},
Doi = {10.3390/econometrics8030031},
Key = {fds352545}
}
@article{fds356401,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Wible, JR},
Title = {Ricardian inference: Charles S. Peirce, economics, and
scientific method},
Journal = {Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society},
Volume = {56},
Number = {4},
Pages = {521-557},
Year = {2020},
Month = {September},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.56.4.02},
Abstract = {Standard histories of economics usually treat the
“marginal revolution” of the mid- 19th century as both
supplanting the “classical” economics of Smith and
Ricardo and as advancing the idea of economics as a
mathematical science. The marginalists -especially Jevons
and Walras-viewed Cournot’s (1838) book on mathematical
economics as a seminal work on which they could build.
Surprisingly, the scientist, philosopher, and logician
Charles S. Peirce discovered Cournot before the marginalist
economists and possessed a deeper appreciation of his
mathematical approach. While Peirce’s contributions to
economics are limited, the influence of economics on his
philosophy is subtle and not well understood. In a number of
fragments, Peirce, who, despite Ricardo’s lack of
mathematical form, nonetheless regarded him as a
paradigmatic mathematical economist, refers to “Ricardian
inference” as a fundamental contribution to scientific
method. Two options, perhaps complementary, are explored as
to exactly what Peirce meant by “Ricardian inference.”
On the one hand, he associates Ricardo with the
“primipostnumeral syllogism,” which is a sort of
generalization to uncountably infinite sets of what Peirce
calls Fermatian inference (often referred to as mathematical
induction). On the other hand, he holds up Ricardo as an
exemplar of the “analytical method,” which is Peirce’s
name for a hybrid form connecting analogy, abduction, and
induction. On either account, economics plays a larger and
more fundamental role in Peirce’s philosophy of science
than is generally understood. In the Harvard Lectures the
two threads are linked together in Peirce’s use of an
economic example to exemplify pragmatism.},
Doi = {10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.56.4.02},
Key = {fds356401}
}
@article{fds366754,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The life you do not save: Reflections on the causal element
in the notion of a decision’s consequences},
Journal = {Journal of Institutional and Theoretical
Economics},
Volume = {176},
Number = {1},
Pages = {169-174},
Year = {2020},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0019},
Doi = {10.1628/jite-2020-0019},
Key = {fds366754}
}
@article{fds344661,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Editor’s note},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {51},
Number = {3},
Pages = {389},
Year = {2019},
Month = {June},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7694871},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-7694871},
Key = {fds344661}
}
@article{fds342813,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Keynes and economics},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {51},
Number = {1},
Pages = {83-88},
Year = {2019},
Month = {February},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7289276},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-7289276},
Key = {fds342813}
}
@article{fds342814,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Craufurd goodwin: Economist as collector},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {51},
Number = {1},
Pages = {187-191},
Year = {2019},
Month = {February},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7289420},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-7289420},
Key = {fds342814}
}
@article{fds333200,
Author = {Hoover, K},
Title = {Scots are more studious},
Journal = {Economist (United Kingdom)},
Volume = {414},
Number = {9074},
Year = {2018},
Month = {February},
Key = {fds333200}
}
@article{fds343702,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {A countercultural methodology: Caldwell’s beyond
positivism at thirty-five},
Volume = {36A},
Pages = {9-17},
Year = {2018},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0743-41542018000036A002},
Abstract = {Caldwell’s Beyond Positivism was a key publication that
helped precipitate the consolidation of the methodology of
economics into a distinct subfield within economics.
Reconsidering it after 35 years, it is striking for its
antina-turalism (i.e., its lack of deference to the actual
practices of economics) or, perhaps, for its meta-naturalism
(displayed in its excessive deference to the philosophy of
science) and for its defense of pluralism. It offers
pluralism as an unsuccessful defense against dogmatism.
Against Caldwell’s pluralism, dogmatism is better opposed
by a commitment of fallibilism and scientific humility.
Caldwell’s defense of Austrian methodology is taken as a
case study to illustrate and investigate his key themes and
the issues that they raise.},
Doi = {10.1108/S0743-41542018000036A002},
Key = {fds343702}
}
@article{fds321958,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The Crisis in economic theory: A review essay},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Literature},
Volume = {54},
Number = {4},
Pages = {1350-1361},
Publisher = {American Economic Association},
Year = {2016},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151338},
Abstract = {The Great Recession and the financial crisis of 2007-09
prompted calls for fundamental reforms of economic theory.
The role of theory in economics and in recent economic
events is considered in light of two recent books: the
sociologist Richard Swedberg's The Art of Social Theory and
the economist André Orléan's The Empire of Value: A New
Foundation for Economics.},
Doi = {10.1257/jel.20151338},
Key = {fds321958}
}
@article{fds285653,
Author = {Halsmayer, V and Hoover, KD},
Title = {Solow's Harrod: Transforming macroeconomic dynamics into a
model of long-run growth},
Journal = {European Journal of the History of Economic
Thought},
Volume = {23},
Number = {4},
Pages = {561-596},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2016},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {0967-2567},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2014.1001763},
Abstract = {Abstract: Modern growth theory derives mostly from Solow's
“A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”
(1956). Solow's own interpretation locates its origins in
his view that Harrod's growth model implied a tendency
toward progressive collapse of the economy. He formulates
his view in terms of Harrod's invoking a fixed-coefficients
production function. We challenge Solow's reading of
Harrod's “Essay in Dynamic Theory,” arguing that
Harrod's object in providing a “dynamic” theory had
little to do with the problem of long-run growth as Solow
understood it, but instead addressed medium-run
fluctuations, the “inherent instability” of economies.
Solow's interpretation of Harrod was grounded in a
particular culture of understanding embedded in the practice
of formal modelling that emerged in economics in the
post-Second World War period. Solow's interpretation, which
ultimately dominated the profession's view of Harrod, is a
case study in the difficulties in communicating across
distinct interpretive communities and of the potential for
losing content and insights in the process. Harrod's objects
– particularly, of trying to account for a tendency of the
economy toward chronic recessions – were lost to the
mainstream literature.},
Doi = {10.1080/09672567.2014.1001763},
Key = {fds285653}
}
@article{fds320587,
Author = {Wible, JR and Hoover, KD},
Title = {Mathematical Economics Comes to America: Charles S. Peirce's
Engagement with Cournot's Recherches Sur Les Principes
Mathematiques De La Théorie Des Richesses},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {37},
Number = {04},
Pages = {511-536},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2015},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837215000450},
Abstract = {<jats:p>Although Cournot’s mathematical economics was
generally neglected until the mid-1870s, he was taken up and
carefully studied by the Scientific Club of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, even before his “discovery” by Walras and
Jevons. The episode is reconstructed from fragmentary
manuscripts of the pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce,
a sophisticated mathematician. Peirce provides a subtle
interpretation and anticipates Bertrand’s
criticisms.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837215000450},
Key = {fds320587}
}
@article{fds320588,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The Ontological Status of Shocks and Trends in
Macroeconomics},
Journal = {Synthese},
Volume = {192},
Number = {11},
Pages = {3509-3532},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2015},
Month = {November},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0503-5},
Doi = {10.1007/s11229-014-0503-5},
Key = {fds320588}
}
@article{fds321959,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Thomas Mayer: (born 18 January 1927, Vienna Austria; died 29
January 2015, Berkeley, California, USA)},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {22},
Number = {4},
Pages = {526-527},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2015},
Month = {October},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1112623},
Doi = {10.1080/1350178X.2015.1112623},
Key = {fds321959}
}
@article{fds285654,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Reductionism in economics: Intentionality and eschatological
justification in the microfoundations of
macroeconomics},
Journal = {Philosophy of Science},
Volume = {82},
Number = {4},
Pages = {689-711},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2015},
Month = {October},
ISSN = {0031-8248},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/682917},
Abstract = {Macroeconomists overwhelmingly believe that macroeconomics
requires microfoundations, typically understood as a strong
eliminativist reductionism. Microfoundations aims to recover
intentionality. In the face of technical and data
constraints macroeconomists typically employ a
representative-agent model, in which a single agent solves
the microeconomic optimization problem for the whole
economy, and take it to be microfoundationally adequate. The
characteristic argument for the representative-agent model
holds that the possibility of the sequential elaboration of
the model to cover any number of individual agents justifies
treating the policy conclusions of the single-agent model as
practically relevant. This eschatological justification is
examined and rejected.},
Doi = {10.1086/682917},
Key = {fds285654}
}
@article{fds325927,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {A Review of James Forder's Macroeconomics and the Phillips
Curve Myth},
Year = {2015},
Month = {July},
Abstract = {A review of James Forder’s important history of the
Phillips Curve.},
Key = {fds325927}
}
@article{fds285662,
Author = {Hoover, K and Juselius, K},
Title = {TRYGVE HAAVELMO'S EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY and SCENARIO
ANALYSIS in A COINTEGRATED VECTOR AUTOREGRESSION},
Journal = {Econometric Theory},
Volume = {31},
Number = {2},
Pages = {249-274},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2015},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {0266-4666},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266466614000292},
Abstract = {The paper provides a careful, analytical account of Trygve
Haavelmo's use of the analogy between controlled experiments
common in the natural sciences and econometric techniques.
The experimental analogy forms the linchpin of the
methodology for passive observation that he develops in his
famous monograph, The Probability Approach in Econometrics
(1944). Contrary to some recent interpretations of
Haavelmo's method, the experimental analogy does not commit
Haavelmo to a strong apriorism in which econometrics can
only test and reject theoretical hypotheses, rather it
supports the acquisition of knowledge through a two-way
exchange between theory and empirical evidence. Once the
details of the analogy are systematically understood, the
experimental analogy can be used to shed light on
theory-consistent cointegrated vector autoregression (CVAR)
scenario analyses. A CVAR scenario analysis can be
interpreted as a clear example of Haavelmo's 'experimental'
approach; and, in turn, it can be shown to extend and
develop Haavelmo's methodology and to address issues that
Haavelmo regarded as unresolved.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0266466614000292},
Key = {fds285662}
}
@article{fds285664,
Author = {Demiralp, S and Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Still puzzling: Evaluating the price puzzle in an
empirically identified structural vector
autoregression},
Journal = {Empirical Economics},
Volume = {46},
Number = {2},
Pages = {701-731},
Year = {2014},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {0377-7332},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0694-5},
Abstract = {The price puzzle, an increase in the price level associated
with a contractionary monetary shock, is investigated in a
rich, 12-variable SVAR in which various factors that have
been mooted as solutions are considered jointly. SVARs for
the pre-1980 and post-1990 periods are identified
empirically using a graph-theoretic causal search algorithm
combined with formal tests of the implied overidentifying
restrictions. In this SVAR, the pre-1980 price puzzle
depends on the characterization of monetary policy, and the
post-1990 price puzzle is statistically insignificant.
Commonly suggested theoretical resolutions to the price
puzzle are shown to have causal implications inconsistent
with the data. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg.},
Doi = {10.1007/s00181-013-0694-5},
Key = {fds285664}
}
@article{fds285657,
Author = {Boianovsky, M and Hoover, KD},
Title = {In the Kingdom of Solovia: The Rise of Growth Economics at
MIT, 1956-1970},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {46},
Number = {Supplement 1},
Pages = {198-228},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0018-2702},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2716172},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2716172},
Key = {fds285657}
}
@article{fds285663,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {On the reception of haavelmo's econometric
thought},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {36},
Number = {1},
Pages = {45-65},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2014},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {1053-8372},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1053837214000029},
Abstract = {The significance of Haavelmo's The Probability Approach in
Econometrics (1944), the foundational document of modern
econometrics, has been interpreted in widely different ways.
Some regard it as a blueprint for a provocative (but
ultimately unsuccessful) program dominated by the need for a
priori theoretical identification of econometric models.
Others focus more on statistical adequacy than on
theoretical identification. They see its deepest insights as
unduly neglected. The present article uses bibliometric
techniques and a close reading of econometrics articles and
textbooks to trace the way in which the economics profession
received, interpreted, and transmitted Haavelmo's ideas. A
key irony is that the first group calls for a reform of
econometric thinking that goes several steps beyond
Haavelmo's initial vision; the second group argues that
essentially what the first group advocates was already in
Haavelmo's Probability Approach from the beginning. © 2014
The History of Economics Society.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1053837214000029},
Key = {fds285663}
}
@article{fds285667,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Stevens, JP},
Title = {The 'slave bonus'},
Journal = {New York Review of Books},
Volume = {60},
Number = {16},
Year = {2013},
Month = {October},
ISSN = {0028-7504},
Key = {fds285667}
}
@article{fds285668,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {John Paul Stevens replies},
Journal = {New York Review of Books},
Volume = {60},
Number = {16},
Year = {2013},
Month = {October},
ISSN = {0028-7504},
Key = {fds285668}
}
@article{fds285671,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Young, W},
Title = {Rational expectations: Retrospect and prospect},
Journal = {Macroeconomic Dynamics},
Volume = {17},
Number = {5},
Pages = {1169-1192},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2013},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {1365-1005},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1365100511000812},
Abstract = {The transcript of a panel discussion marking the 50th
anniversary of John Muth's Rational Expectations and the
Theory of Price Movements (Econometrica 1961). The panel
consisted of Michael Lovell, Robert Lucas, Dale Mortensen,
Robert Shiller, and Neil Wallace. The discussion was
moderated by Kevin Hoover and Warren Young. The panel
touched on a wide variety of issues related to the
rational-expectations hypothesis, including its history,
starting with Muth's work at Carnegie Tech; its
methodological role; applications to policy; its
relationship to behavioral economics; its role in the recent
financial crisis; and its likely future. The panel
discussion was held in a session sponsored by the History of
Economics Society at the Allied Social Sciences Association
(ASSA) meetings in the Capitol 1 Room of the Hyatt Regency
Hotel in Denver, Colorado. © 2012 Cambridge University
Press.},
Doi = {10.1017/S1365100511000812},
Key = {fds285671}
}
@article{fds285703,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Causal structure and hierarchies of models.},
Journal = {Studies in history and philosophy of biological and
biomedical sciences},
Volume = {43},
Number = {4},
Pages = {778-786},
Year = {2012},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {1369-8486},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22727127},
Abstract = {Economics prefers complete explanations: general over
partial equilibrium, microfoundational over aggregate.
Similarly, probabilistic accounts of causation frequently
prefer greater detail to less as in typical resolutions of
Simpson's paradox. Strategies of causal refinement equally
aim to distinguish direct from indirect causes. Yet, there
are countervailing practices in economics.
Representative-agent models aim to capture economic
motivation but not to reduce the level of aggregation. Small
structural vector-autoregression and dynamic stochastic
general-equilibrium models are practically preferred to
larger ones. The distinction between exogenous and
endogenous variables suggests partitioning the world into
distinct subsystems. The tension in these practices is
addressed within a structural account of causation inspired
by the work of Herbert Simon's, which defines cause with
reference to complete systems adapted to deal with
incomplete systems and piecemeal evidence. The focus is on
understanding the constraints that a structural account of
causation places on the freedom to model complex or
lower-order systems as simpler or higher-order systems and
on to what degree piecemeal evidence can be incorporated
into a structural account.},
Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.05.007},
Key = {fds285703}
}
@article{fds285706,
Author = {Duarte, PG and Hoover, KD},
Title = {Observing Shocks},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {44},
Number = {suppl_1},
Pages = {226-249},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2012},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0018-2702},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000313155900011&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Abstract = {<jats:p>Macroeconomists have observed business cycle
fluctuations over time by constructing and manipulating
models in which shocks have increasingly played a greater
role. Shock is a term of art that pervades modern economics
appearing in nearly one-quarter of all journal articles in
economics and in nearly half in macroeconomics.
Surprisingly, its rise as an essential element in the
vocabulary of economists can be dated only to the early
1970s. We trace the history of shocks in macroeconomics from
Ragnar Frisch and Eugen Slutsky in the 1920s and 1930s
through real business cycle and DSGE models and to the use
of shocks as generators of impulse-response functions, which
are in turn used as data in matching estimators. The history
is organized around the observability of shocks. As well as
documenting a critical conceptual development in economics,
the history of shocks shows that James Bogen and James
Woodward’s distinction between data and phenomena must be
substantially relativized if it is to be at all
plausible.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-1631851},
Key = {fds285706}
}
@article{fds320590,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Juselius, K},
Title = {Experiments, Passive Observation and Scenario Analysis:
Trygve Haavelmo and the Cointegrated Vector
Autoregression},
Journal = {Univ. of Copenhagen Dept. of Economics Discussion
Paper},
Number = {12},
Year = {2012},
Month = {November},
Abstract = {The paper provides a careful, analytical account of Trygve
Haavelmo's unsystematic, but important, use of the analogy
between controlled experiments common in the natural
sciences and econometric techniques. The experimental
analogy forms the linchpin of the methodology for passive
observation that he develops in his famous monograph, The
Probability Approach in Econometrics (1944). We show how,
once the details of the analogy are systematically
understood, the experimental analogy can be used to shed
light on theory-consistent cointegrated vector
autoregression (CVAR) scenario analysis. CVAR scenario
analysis can be seen as a clear example of Haavelmo's
'experimental' approach; and, in turn, it can be shown to
extend and develop Haavelmo's methodology and to address
issues that Haavelmo regarded as unresolved.},
Key = {fds320590}
}
@article{fds325928,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Man and Machine in Macroeconomics},
Year = {2012},
Month = {August},
Key = {fds325928}
}
@article{fds320591,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Against Psychosis: A Review of Roman Frydman and Michael D.
Goldberg’s Beyond Mechanical Markets: Asset Price Swings,
Risk, and the Role of the State},
Journal = {CHOPE Working Paper},
Number = {2012},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {A review essay of Roman Frydman & Michael D. Goldberg’s
Beyond Mechanical Markets: Asset Price Swings, Risk, and the
Role of the State.},
Key = {fds320591}
}
@article{fds320592,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The Role of Hypothesis Testing in the Molding of Econometric
Models},
Journal = {CHOPE Working Paper},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2012},
Pages = {43-43},
Publisher = {Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v6i2.133},
Abstract = {The paper is a keynote lecture from the Tilburg-Madrid
Conference on Hypothesis Tests: Foundations and Applications
at the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
Madrid, Spain, 15-16 December 2011. It addresses the role of
tests of statistical hypotheses (specification tests) in
selection of a statistically admissible model in which to
evaluate economic hypotheses. The issue is formulated in the
context of recent philosophical accounts on the nature of
models and related to some results in the literature on
specification search.},
Doi = {10.23941/ejpe.v6i2.133},
Key = {fds320592}
}
@article{fds285669,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Microfoundational programs},
Pages = {19-61},
Booktitle = {Microfoundations Reconsidered: The Relationship of Micro and
Macroeconomics in Historical Perspective.},
Publisher = {Elgar},
Editor = {Pedro Garcia Duarte and Gilberto Lima Tadeu},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781781004104.00008},
Abstract = {The substantial questions of macroeconomics itself are very
old, going back to the origins of economics itself. But
professional self-consciousness of the distinction between
macroeconomics and microeconomics dates only to the 1930s.
The distinction was drawn quite independently of Keynes, yet
Keynes’s General Theory led to its widespread adoption.
The question of the relationship of microeconomics to
macroeconomics encapsulated in the question of whether
macroeconomics requires microfoundations was not raised for
the first time in the 1960s or ‘70s, as is sometimes
thought, but goes back to the very foundations of
macroeconomics. There are in fact at least three
microfoundational programs: a Marshallian program with its
roots directly in Keynes’s own theorizing in the General
Theory; a fixed-price general-equilibrium theory, which
includes some work of Patinkin, Clower, and Barro and
Grossman; and the more recent representative-agent
microfoundations, starting with Lucas and the new classicals
in the early 1970s. This paper will document the development
of each of these microfoundational programs and their
interrelationship, especially in relationship to the
programs of general-equilibrium theory and econometrics,
whose modern incarnations both date from exactly the same
period in the 1930s.},
Doi = {10.4337/9781781004104.00008},
Key = {fds285669}
}
@article{fds285670,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Economic Theory and Causal Inference},
Pages = {89-113},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Year = {2012},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50004-X},
Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50004-X},
Key = {fds285670}
}
@article{fds285693,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Craufurd goodwin and history of political economy: A double
anniversary},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {43},
Number = {2},
Pages = {247-255},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2011},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {0018-2702},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-1257379},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-1257379},
Key = {fds285693}
}
@article{fds285694,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Introduction: Methodological implications of the financial
crisis},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {17},
Number = {4},
Pages = {397-398},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2010},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {1350-178X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2010.525037},
Doi = {10.1080/1350178X.2010.525037},
Key = {fds285694}
}
@article{fds285700,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Idealizing Reduction: The Microfoundations of
Macroeconomics},
Journal = {Erkenntnis},
Volume = {73},
Number = {3},
Pages = {329-347},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {2010},
Month = {November},
ISSN = {0165-0106},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2043 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {The dominant view among macroeconomists is that
macroeconomics reduces to microeconomics, both in the sense
that all macroeconomic phenomena arise out of microeconomic
phenomena and in the sense that macroeconomic theory-to the
extent that it is correct-can be derived from microeconomic
theory. More than that, the dominant view believes that
macroeconomics should in practice use the reduced
microeconomic theory: this is the program of
microfoundations for macroeconomics to which the vast
majority of macroeconomists adhere. The "microfoundational"
models that they actually employ are, however, characterized
by another feature: they are highly idealized, even when
they are applied as direct characterizations of actual data,
which itself consists of macroeconomic aggregates. This
paper explores the interrelationship between reductionism
and idealization in the microfoundational program and the
role of idealization in empirical modeling. © 2010 The
Author(s).},
Doi = {10.1007/s10670-010-9235-1},
Key = {fds285700}
}
@article{fds285691,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Minisymposium on the history of econometrics:
Introduction},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {42},
Number = {1},
Pages = {19-20},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2010},
Month = {February},
ISSN = {0018-2702},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-2009-061},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2009-061},
Key = {fds285691}
}
@article{fds285695,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {“Minisymposium: Methodological Implications of the
Financial Crisis: Introduction”},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Year = {2010},
Abstract = {Editor's introduction to the minisymposium.},
Key = {fds285695}
}
@article{fds285699,
Author = {Boianovsky, M and Hoover, KD},
Title = {The neoclassical growth model and twentieth-century
economics},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {41},
Number = {SUPPL.1},
Pages = {1-23},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2009},
Month = {December},
ISSN = {0018-2702},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000280833000001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-2009-013},
Key = {fds285699}
}
@article{fds285692,
Author = {Hoover, K},
Title = {Economic reasoning},
Journal = {Economist},
Volume = {392},
Number = {8643},
Year = {2009},
Month = {August},
ISSN = {0013-0613},
Key = {fds285692}
}
@article{fds285702,
Author = {Demiralp, S and Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {A bootstrap method for identifying and evaluating a
structural vector autoregression},
Journal = {Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics},
Volume = {70},
Number = {4},
Pages = {509-533},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2008},
Month = {August},
ISSN = {0305-9049},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2047 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {Graph-theoretic methods of causal search based on the ideas
of Pearl (2000), Spirtes et al. (2000), and others have been
applied by a number of researchers to economic data,
particularly by Swanson and Granger (1997) to the problem of
finding a data-based contemporaneous causal order for the
structural vector autoregression, rather than, as is
typically done, assuming a weakly justified Choleski order.
Demiralp and Hoover (2003) provided Monte Carlo evidence
that such methods were effective, provided that signal
strengths were sufficiently high. Unfortunately, in
applications to actual data, such Monte Carlo simulations
are of limited value, as the causal structure of the true
data-generating process is necessarily unknown. In this
paper, we present a bootstrap procedure that can be applied
to actual data (i.e. without knowledge of the true causal
structure). We show with an applied example and a simulation
study that the procedure is an effective tool for assessing
our confidence in causal orders identified by
graph-theoretic search algorithms. © 2008. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd and the Department of Economics, University
of Oxford.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00496.x},
Key = {fds285702}
}
@article{fds285701,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The vanity of the economist: A comment on Peart and Levy's
the "Vanity of the Philosopher"},
Journal = {American Journal of Economics and Sociology},
Volume = {67},
Number = {3},
Pages = {445-453},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2008},
Month = {July},
ISSN = {0002-9246},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2039 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {In the Vanity of the Philosopher, Sandra Peart and David
Levy reconsider "postclassical" economics from the vantage
point of Adam Smith's "analytical" egalitarianism.
Analytical egalitarianism is assumed, not proved; and Peart
and Levy's criticisms of many 19th- and early 20th-century
economists, as well as eugenics in general, depend on
equivocating between analytical and substantive
egalitarianism. They fail to provide a non-question-begging
critique of eugenics. © 2008 American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, Inc.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1536-7150.2008.00581.x},
Key = {fds285701}
}
@article{fds325929,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Was Harrod Right?},
Year = {2008},
Month = {May},
Key = {fds325929}
}
@article{fds285698,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Johansen, S and Juselius, K},
Title = {Allowing the data to speak freely: The macroeconometrics of
the cointegrated vector autoregression},
Journal = {American Economic Review},
Volume = {98},
Number = {2},
Pages = {251-255},
Publisher = {American Economic Association},
Year = {2008},
Month = {May},
ISSN = {0002-8282},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2056 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {An explication of the key ideas behind the Cointegrated
Vector Autoregression Approach. The CVAR approach is related
to Haavelmo’s famous “Probability Approach in
Econometrics” (1944). It insists on careful stochastic
specification as a necessary groundwork for econometric
inference and the testing of economic theories. In
time-series data, the probability approach requires careful
specification of the integration and cointegration
properties of variables in systems of equations. The
relationship between the CVAR approach and wider
methodological issues and between it and related approaches
(e.g., the LSE approach) are explored. The
specific-to-general strategy of widening the scope of
econometric models to identify stochastic trends and
cointegrating relations and to nest theoretical economic
models is illustrated with the example of purchasing-power
parity.},
Doi = {10.1257/aer.98.2.251},
Key = {fds285698}
}
@article{fds285696,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Siegler, MV},
Title = {The rhetoric of 'Signifying nothing': A rejoinder to Ziliak
and McCloskey},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {15},
Number = {1},
Pages = {57-68},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2008},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {1350-178X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501780801913546},
Doi = {10.1080/13501780801913546},
Key = {fds285696}
}
@article{fds285697,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Siegler, MV},
Title = {Sound and fury: McCloskey and significance testing in
economics},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {15},
Number = {1},
Pages = {1-37},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2008},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {1350-178X},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2045 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {For more than 20 years, Deidre McCloskey has campaigned to
convince the economics profession that it is hopelessly
confused about statistical significance. She argues that
many practices associated with significance testing are bad
science and that most economists routinely employ these bad
practices: 'Though to a child they look like science, with
all that really hard math, no science is being done in these
and 96 percent of the best empirical economics ' (McCloskey
1999). McCloskey's charges are analyzed and rejected. That
statistical significance is not economic significance is a
jejune and uncontroversial claim, and there is no convincing
evidence that economists systematically mistake the two.
Other elements of McCloskey's analysis of statistical
significance are shown to be ill-founded, and her criticisms
of practices of economists are found to be based in
inaccurate readings and tendentious interpretations of those
economists' work. Properly used, significance tests are a
valuable tool for assessing signal strength, for assisting
in model specification, and for determining causal
structure.},
Doi = {10.1080/13501780801913298},
Key = {fds285697}
}
@article{fds285665,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {A History of Postwar Monetary Economics and
Macroeconomics},
Pages = {411-427},
Publisher = {BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD},
Year = {2007},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470999059.ch26},
Doi = {10.1002/9780470999059.ch26},
Key = {fds285665}
}
@article{fds285650,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Does macroeconomics need microfoundations?},
Pages = {315-333},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2007},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819025.022},
Abstract = {As I observed in the first lecture, I chose Pissarides’s
model as a paradigm of the modern macroeconomic model for a
variety of reasons: the clarity of its goals and exposition;
the manner in which it attempted to relate its theoretical
construction to empirical facts (at least in principle);
and, by no means the least important reason, because it was
the model that Nancy Cartwright held up as an example of a
nomological machine in economics. A number of fellow
economists, however, question whether Pissarides’s model
really is a macroeconomic model. Because it appears to model
the decision problem of the individual worker and the
individual firm, some economists regard it as a
microeconomic model. But this is all the better for my
purposes because there is a persistent refrain in recent
macroeconomics that the only acceptable macroeconomic models
are those that have adequate microfoundations. The idea of
microfoundations did not originate with the new classical
macroeconomics, but the manner in which the new classical
macroeconomics has dominated the agenda of macroeconomics
over the past quarter century has firmly cemented it in the
minds of virtually all economists. Lucas puts it clearly
when he longs for an economics that does not need the
prefixes “micro” or “macro” – sound economics is
held to be microeconomics, and any macroeconomics that is
not just a shorthand for the manner in which microeconomics
is applied to certain problems is held to be bad
economics.},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511819025.022},
Key = {fds285650}
}
@article{fds285689,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {A Neowicksellian in a new classical world: The methodology
of Michael Woodford's Interest and Prices},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {28},
Number = {2},
Pages = {143-149},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2006},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {1053-8372},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10427710600676322},
Doi = {10.1080/10427710600676322},
Key = {fds285689}
}
@article{fds285690,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Fragility and robustness in econometrics: Introduction to
the symposium},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {13},
Number = {2},
Pages = {159-160},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2006},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {1350-178X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501780600733335},
Doi = {10.1080/13501780600733335},
Key = {fds285690}
}
@article{fds285649,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Doctor keynes: Economic theory in a diagnostic
science},
Pages = {78-97},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2006},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521840902.005},
Abstract = {THEORY AND PRACTICE For the greater part of his professional
life, John Maynard Keynes was known as a practical man: the
author of topical tracts on current economic questions, an
adviser to, and an emissary from, the British Treasury, a
successful player of financial markets for himself and
King's College Cambridge, a member of corporate boards and a
portfolio manager for two insurance companies. He was, in
this sense, a part-time academic. And although he had long
been known to be a first-rate economist, it was only after
the publication of the General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money in 1936 that he was able to secure his
reputation as a first-rate economic theorist. Yet, of the
ten volumes of books published in his lifetime, three (the
General Theory and the two volumes of the Treatise on Money,
volume I subtitled The Pure Theory of Money and volume II
The Applied Theory of Money) feature 'theory' in their
title. And if we note that three of the remaining volumes
are clearly non-economic and two are as much political as
economic, the proportion of his economic books
self-consciously styled as theoretical rises to
three-fifths. Even one of the remaining volumes, A Tract on
Monetary Reform, contains a clearly theoretical core. If
Keynes was indeed a theorist, what kind of a theorist was
he?},
Doi = {10.1017/CCOL0521840902.005},
Key = {fds285649}
}
@article{fds285687,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Automatic inference of the contemporaneous causal order of a
system of equations},
Journal = {Econometric Theory},
Volume = {21},
Number = {1},
Pages = {69-77},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2005},
Month = {February},
ISSN = {0266-4666},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2009 Duke open
access},
Doi = {10.1017/S026646660505005X},
Key = {fds285687}
}
@article{fds285685,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Lost causes},
Journal = {Journal of the History of Economic Thought},
Volume = {26},
Number = {2},
Pages = {149-164},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2004},
Month = {June},
ISSN = {1053-8372},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1042771042000219000},
Doi = {10.1080/1042771042000219000},
Key = {fds285685}
}
@article{fds285686,
Author = {De Vroey and M and Hoover, KD},
Title = {Introduction: Seven decades of the IS-LM
model},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {36},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {1-11},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Year = {2004},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-36-suppl_1-1},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-36-suppl_1-1},
Key = {fds285686}
}
@article{fds285688,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Truth and robustness in cross-country growth
regressions},
Journal = {Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics},
Volume = {66},
Number = {5},
Pages = {765-798},
Year = {2004},
Month = {January},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2079 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {We re-examine studies of cross-country growth regressions by
Levine and Renelt (American Economic Review, Vol. 82, 1992,
pp. 942-963) and Sala-i-Martin (American Economic Review,
Vol. 87, 1997a, pp. 178-183; Economics Department, Columbia,
University, 1997b). In a realistic Monte Carlo experiment,
their variants of Edward Leamer's extreme-bounds analysis
are compared with a cross-sectional version of the
general-to-specific search methodology associated with the
LSE approach to econometrics. Levine and Renelt's method has
low size and low power, while Sala-i-Martin's method has
high size and high power. The general-to-specific
methodology is shown to have a near nominal size and high
power. Sala-i-Martin's method and the general-to-specific
method are then applied to the actual data from
Sala-i-Martin's original study.},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-0084.2004.101_1.x},
Key = {fds285688}
}
@article{fds285682,
Author = {Demiralp, S and Hoover, KD},
Title = {Searching for the Causal Structure of a Vector
Autoregression},
Journal = {Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics},
Volume = {65},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {745-767},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {2003},
Month = {December},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-9049.2003.00087.x},
Abstract = {We provide an accessible introduction to graph-theoretic
methods for causal analysis. Building on the work of Swanson
and Granger (Journal of the American Statistical
Association, Vol. 92, pp. 357-367, 1997), and generalizing
to a larger class of models, we show how to apply
graph-theoretic methods to selecting the causal order for a
structural vector autoregression (SVAR). We evaluate the PC
(causal search) algorithm in a Monte Carlo study. The PC
algorithm uses tests of conditional independence to select
among the possible causal orders - or at least to reduce the
admissible causal orders to a narrow equivalence class. Our
findings suggest that graph-theoretic methods may prove to
be a useful tool in the analysis of SVARs.},
Doi = {10.1046/j.0305-9049.2003.00087.x},
Key = {fds285682}
}
@article{fds285683,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Some causal lessons from macroeconomics},
Journal = {Journal of Econometrics},
Volume = {112},
Number = {1},
Pages = {121-125},
Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
Year = {2003},
Month = {January},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/1904 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {Some of the well-posed causal aspects from macroeconomics
were discussed. The causal lessons were supported by the
vector-autoregression (VAR) framework of macroeconomics
which was analogous to the panel-data approach. The analysis
of causality in a VAR framework carried important lessons
for the panel-studies. The results show that the direct and
indirect linkages among the health indicators and the
counterfactual simulations were sensitive to the omission of
a contemporaneous link from wealth to health.},
Doi = {10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00154-9},
Key = {fds285683}
}
@article{fds285684,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Nonstationary time series, cointegration, and the principle
of the common cause},
Journal = {British Journal for the Philosophy of Science},
Volume = {54},
Number = {4},
Pages = {527-551},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2003},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/54.4.527},
Abstract = {Elliot Sober ([2001]) forcefully restates his well-known
counterexample to Reichenbach's principle of the common
cause: bread prices in Britain and sea levels in Venice both
rise over time and are, therefore, correlated; yet they are
ex hypothesi not causally connected, which violates the
principle of the common cause. The counterexample employs
nonstationary data - i.e., data with time-dependent
population moments. Common measures of statistical
association do not generally reflect probabilistic
dependence among nonstationary data. I demonstrate the
inadequacy of the counterexample and of some previous
responses to it, as well as illustrating more appropriate
measures of probabilistic dependence in the nonstationary
case.},
Doi = {10.1093/bjps/54.4.527},
Key = {fds285684}
}
@article{fds285680,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Dowell, ME},
Title = {Measuring causes: Episodes in the quantitative assessment of
the value of money},
Journal = {History of Political Economy},
Volume = {33},
Number = {SUPPL.},
Pages = {159-161},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2563 Duke open
access},
Doi = {10.1215/00182702-33-suppl_1-137},
Key = {fds285680}
}
@article{fds343584,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Introduction},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {8},
Number = {2},
Pages = {167},
Year = {2001},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501780110047264},
Doi = {10.1080/13501780110047264},
Key = {fds343584}
}
@article{fds285681,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Siegler, MV},
Title = {Taxing and spending in the long view: The causal structure
of US fiscal policy, 1791-1913},
Journal = {Oxford Economic Papers},
Volume = {52},
Number = {4},
Pages = {745-773},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0030-7653},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oep/52.4.745},
Abstract = {Causal relations between US federal taxation and expenditure
are analyzed using an approach based on the invariance of
econometric relationships in the face of structural
interventions. Institutional evidence for interventions or
changes of regime and econometric tests for structural
breaks are used to investigate the relative stability of
conditional and marginal probability distributions for each
variable. The patterns of stability are the products of the
underlying causal order. Consistent with earlier work on the
post World War II period, we find that dominant causal
direction (with only a short-lived reversal) runs from taxes
to spending in the period before World War
I.},
Doi = {10.1093/oep/52.4.745},
Key = {fds285681}
}
@article{fds343585,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Three attitudes towards data mining},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {7},
Number = {2},
Pages = {195-210},
Year = {2000},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501780050045083},
Abstract = {'Data mining' refers to a broad class of activities that
have in common, a search over different ways to process or
package data statistically or econometrically with the
purpose of making the final presentation meet certain design
criteria. We characterize three attitudes toward data
mining: first, that it is to be avoided and, if it is
engaged in, that statistical inferences must be adjusted to
account for it; second, that it is inevitable and that the
only results of any interest are those that transcend the
variety of alternative data mined specifications (a view
associated with Leamer's extreme-bounds analysis); and
third, that it is essential and that the only hope we have
of using econometrics to uncover true economic relationships
is to be found in the intelligent mining of data. The first
approach confuses considerations of sampling distribution
and considerations of epistemic warrant and, reaches an
unnecessarily hostile attitude toward data mining. The
second approach relies on a notion of robustness that has
little relationship to truth: there is no good reason to
expect a true specification to be robust alternative
specifications. Robustness is not, in general, a carrier of
epistemic warrant. The third approach is operationalized in
the general-to-specific search methodology of the LSE school
of econometrics. Its success demonstrates that intelligent
data mining is an important element in empirical
investigation in economics. © 2000, Taylor & Francis Group,
LLC.},
Doi = {10.1080/13501780050045083},
Key = {fds343585}
}
@article{fds285678,
Author = {Hartley, JE and Hoover, KD and Salyer, KD},
Title = {The limits of business cycle research: Assessing the real
business cycle model},
Journal = {Oxford Review of Economic Policy},
Volume = {13},
Number = {3},
Pages = {34-54},
Year = {1997},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0266-903X},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/13.3.34},
Abstract = {The real business cycle model dominates business cycle
research in the new classical tradition. Typically, real
business cycle modellers both offer the bold conjecture that
business cycles are equilibrium phenomena driven by
technology shocks and also novel strategies for assessing
the success of the model. This article critically examines
the real business model and the assessment strategy, surveys
the literature supporting and opposing the model, and
evaluates the evidence on the empirical success of the
model. It argues that, on the preponderance of the evidence,
the real business cycle model is refuted.},
Doi = {10.1093/oxrep/13.3.34},
Key = {fds285678}
}
@article{fds285679,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Facts and artifacts: Calibration and the empirical
assessment of real-business-cycle models},
Journal = {Oxford Economic Papers},
Volume = {47},
Number = {1},
Pages = {24-44},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {1995},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0030-7653},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a042160},
Doi = {10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a042160},
Key = {fds285679}
}
@article{fds285676,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Post hoc ergo propter once more an evaluation of 'does
monetary policy matter?' in the spirit of James
Tobin},
Journal = {Journal of Monetary Economics},
Volume = {34},
Number = {1},
Pages = {47-74},
Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
Year = {1994},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0304-3932},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/1981 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {Christina and David Romer's paper 'Does Monetary Policy
Matter?' advocates the so-called 'narrative' approach to
causal inference. We demonstrate that this method will not
sustain causal inference. First, it is impossible to
distinguish monetary shocks from oil shocks as causes of
recessions. Second, a world in which the Fed only announces
intentions to act cannot be distinguished from one in which
it in fact acts. Third, the techniques of dynamic simulation
used in the Romers' study are inappropriate and
quantitatively misleading. And, finally, their approach
provides no basis for establishing causal asymmetry. ©
1994.},
Doi = {10.1016/0304-3932(94)01149-4},
Key = {fds285676}
}
@article{fds285677,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Money may matter, but how could you know?},
Journal = {Journal of Monetary Economics},
Volume = {34},
Number = {1},
Pages = {89-99},
Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
Year = {1994},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0304-3932},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(94)01151-6},
Abstract = {Christina and David Romers' reply to our article 'Post Hoc
Ergo Propter Hoc Once More' misses the point. Our argument
was never that monetary policy did not matter, but that
their methods could not provide useful evidence that it did.
Yet, they offer additional evidence of the same type with
respect to the efficacy of monetary shocks without
effectively replying to the criticisms of their methods. We
show point by point that such responses as they give leave
our original conclusion intact: their narrative/statistical
approach is a complicated version of the fallacy post hoc
ergo propter hoc; and, as such, will not sustain inferences
with respect to the direction and strength of the causes of
output fluctuations. © 1994.},
Doi = {10.1016/0304-3932(94)01151-6},
Key = {fds285677}
}
@article{fds321960,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Econometrics as observation: The Lucas critique and the
nature of econometric inference},
Journal = {Journal of Economic Methodology},
Volume = {1},
Number = {1},
Pages = {65-80},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {1994},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501789400000006},
Doi = {10.1080/13501789400000006},
Key = {fds321960}
}
@article{fds341488,
Author = {Hoover, K},
Title = {Comment},
Journal = {Social Epistemology},
Volume = {7},
Number = {3},
Pages = {257-260},
Year = {1993},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691729308578704},
Doi = {10.1080/02691729308578704},
Key = {fds341488}
}
@article{fds285675,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The causal direction between money and prices. An
alternative approach},
Journal = {Journal of Monetary Economics},
Volume = {27},
Number = {3},
Pages = {381-423},
Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
Year = {1991},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0304-3932},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10161/1974 Duke open
access},
Abstract = {Causality is viewed as a matter of control. Controllability
is captured in Simon's analysis of causality as an
asymmetrical relation of recursion between variables in the
unobservable data-generating process. Tests of the stability
of marginal and conditional distributions for these
variables can provide evidence of causal ordering. The
causal direction between prices and money in the United
States 1950-1985 is assessed. The balance of evidence
supports the view that money does not cause prices, and that
prices do cause money. © 1991.},
Doi = {10.1016/0304-3932(91)90015-G},
Key = {fds285675}
}
@article{fds321961,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The logic of causal inference: Econometrics and the
Conditional Analysis of Causation},
Journal = {Economics and Philosophy},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2},
Pages = {207-234},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {1990},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026626710000122X},
Abstract = {This article is extracted from my earlier paper, “The
Logic of Causal Inference: With anApplication to Money and
Prices” (Working Papers in the Research Program in
AppliedMacroeconomics and Macro Policy, No. 55, Institute of
Governmental Affairs, Universityof California, Davis). I am
grateful to Peter Oppenheimer, Peter Sinclair, Charles
Goodhart, Steven Sheffrin, Thomas Mayer, Edward Learner,
Thomas Cooley, Stephen LeRoy, LeonWegge, David Hendry, Nancy
Wulwick, Diran Bodenhorn, Clive Granger, Paul Holland,
Daniel Hausman (co-editor), and three anonymous referees, as
well as the participants inseminars at the University of
California, Berkeley (Fall 1986), the University of
California, Davis (Fall 1988), and the University of
California, Irvine (Spring 1989), for comments onthis
article in its various previous incarnations. © 1990,
Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.},
Doi = {10.1017/S026626710000122X},
Key = {fds321961}
}
@article{fds285673,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Money, prices and finance in the new monetary
economics},
Journal = {Oxford Economic Papers},
Volume = {40},
Number = {1},
Pages = {150-167},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {1988},
Month = {January},
ISSN = {0030-7653},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041842},
Doi = {10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041842},
Key = {fds285673}
}
@article{fds321962,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {ON THE PITFALLS OF UNTESTED COMMON‐FACTOR RESTRICTIONS:
THE CASE OF THE INVERTED FISHER HYPOTHESIS},
Journal = {Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics},
Volume = {50},
Number = {2},
Pages = {125-138},
Publisher = {WILEY},
Year = {1988},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1988.mp50002002.x},
Doi = {10.1111/j.1468-0084.1988.mp50002002.x},
Key = {fds321962}
}
@article{fds285674,
Author = {Bisignano, J and Hoover, K},
Title = {Some suggested improvements to a simple portfolio balance
model of exchange rate determination with special reference
to the U. S. dollar/Canadian dollar rate},
Journal = {Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv},
Volume = {118},
Number = {1},
Pages = {19-38},
Publisher = {Springer Nature},
Year = {1982},
Month = {March},
ISSN = {0043-2636},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02706077},
Doi = {10.1007/BF02706077},
Key = {fds285674}
}
%% Chapters in Books
@misc{fds333582,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Macroeconomics, History of From 1933 to Present},
Pages = {400-405},
Booktitle = {International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences: Second Edition},
Publisher = {Elsevier},
Year = {2015},
Month = {March},
ISBN = {9780080970868},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.71066-X},
Abstract = {The history of modern macroeconomics begins when much older
economic questions were reclassified by Ragnar Frisch under
the headings 'microeconomics' and 'macroeconomics.' The
history of macroeconomics related here is importantly a
history of the relationships of macroeconomics to
microeconomics, and econometrics. The emphasis is on the
development of macroeconomics as an interplay among economic
theory, empirical investigation, and public
policy.},
Doi = {10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.71066-X},
Key = {fds333582}
}
@misc{fds362081,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Pragmatism, perspectivai realism, and econometrics},
Pages = {223-240},
Booktitle = {Economics for Real: Uskali Mäki and the Place of Truth in
Economics},
Year = {2013},
Month = {June},
ISBN = {9780415686549},
Key = {fds362081}
}
@misc{fds285659,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Pragmatism, perspectival realism, and econometrics},
Pages = {221-240},
Booktitle = {Economics for Real: Uskali Maki and the Place of Truth in
Economics},
Publisher = {Routledge},
Editor = {Aki Lehtinen and Jaakko Kuorikoski and Petri
Ylikoski},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780203148402},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203148402},
Abstract = {Econometricians tend to hold simultaneously two views in
tension with each other: an apparent anti-realism, which
holds that all models are false and at best useful
constructs or approximations to true models, and an apparent
realism, on which models are to be judged by their success
at capturing an independent reality. This tension is
resolved starting from Ronald Giere’s perspectival
realism. Perspectival realism can itself be seen as a
species of pragmatism, as that term is understood by its
originator, Charles S. Peirce.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203148402},
Key = {fds285659}
}
@misc{fds354538,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Identity, Structure, and Causal Representation in Scientific
Models},
Volume = {3},
Pages = {35-57},
Booktitle = {History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life
Sciences},
Publisher = {Springer},
Editor = {Hsiang-Ke Chao and Szu-Ting Chen and Roberta
Millstein},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2454-9_3},
Abstract = {Recent debates over the nature of causation, casual
inference, and the uses of causal models in counterfactual
analysis, involving inter alia Nancy Cartwright (Hunting
Causes and Using Them), James Woodward (Making Things
Happen), and Judea Pearl (Causation), hinge on how causality
is represented in models. Economists’ indigenous approach
to causal representation goes back to the work of Herbert
Simon with the Cowles Commission in the early 1950s. The
paper explicates a scheme for the representation of causal
structure, inspired by Simon, and shows how this
representation sheds light on some important debates in the
philosophy of causation. This structural account is compared
to Woodward’s manipulability account. It is used to
evaluate the recent debates – particularly, with respect
to the nature of causal structure, the identity of causes,
causal independence, and modularity. Special attention is
given to modeling issues that arise in empirical
economics.},
Doi = {10.1007/978-94-007-2454-9_3},
Key = {fds354538}
}
@misc{fds368102,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {FACTS AND ARTIFACTS: CALIBRATION AND THE EMPIRICAL
ASSESSMENT OF REAL-BUSINESS-CYCLE MODELS},
Pages = {272-291},
Booktitle = {Real business cycles: A Reader},
Year = {2013},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9781134694792},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203070710-23},
Abstract = {THE RELATIONSHIP between theory and data has been, from the
beginning, a central concern of the new-classical
macroeconomics. This much is evident in the title of Robert
E. Lucas’s and Thomas J. Sargent’s landmark edited
volume, Rational Expectations and Econometric Practice
(1981). With the advent of real-business-cycle models, many
new classical economists have turned to calibration methods.
The new classical macroeconomics is now divided between
calibrators and estimators. But the debate is not a
parochial one, raising, as it does, issues about the
relationships of models to reality and the nature of
econometrics that should be important to every school of
macroeconomic thought, indeed to all applied economics. The
stake in this debate is the future direction of quantitative
macroeconomics. It is, therefore, critical to understand the
root issues.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203070710-23},
Key = {fds368102}
}
@misc{fds211920,
Author = {K.D. Hoover and Selva Demiralp and Stephen Perez},
Title = {“Empirical Identification of the Vector Autoregression:
The Causes and Effects of U.S. M2”},
Pages = {37-58},
Booktitle = {The Methodology and Practice of Econometrics: A Festschrift
in Honour of David F. Hendry},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Editor = {Jennifer Castle and Neil Shephard},
Year = {2012},
Key = {fds211920}
}
@misc{fds211902,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {"Identity, Structure, and Causal Representation in
Scientific Models"},
Booktitle = {Towards the Methodological Turn in the Philosophy of
Science: Mechanism and Causality in Biology and
Economics.},
Publisher = {Springer},
Editor = {Hsiang-Ke Chao and Szu-Ting Chen and Roberta
Millstein},
Year = {2012},
Abstract = {Recent debates over the nature causation, casual inference,
and the uses of causal models in counterfactual analysis,
involving inter alia Nancy Cartwright (Hunting Causes and
Using Them), James Woodward (Making Things Happen) and Judea
Pearl (Causation) hinge on how causality is represented in
models. Economists’ indigenous approach to causal
representation goes back to the work of Herbert Simon with
the Cowles Commission in the early 1950s. The paper
explicates a scheme for the representation of causal
structure, inspired by Simon and shows how this
representation sheds light on some important debates in the
philosophy of causation. This structural account is compared
to Woodward’s manipulability account. It is used to
evaluate the recent debates – particularly, with respect
to the nature of causal structure, the identity of causes,
causal independence, and modularity. Special attention is
given to modeling issues that arise in empirical
economics.},
Key = {fds211902}
}
@misc{fds285660,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Counterfactuals and causal structure},
Pages = {338-360},
Booktitle = {Causality in the Sciences},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Editor = {Phyllis McKay Illari and Federica Russo and Jon
Williamson},
Year = {2011},
Month = {September},
ISBN = {9780199574131},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0016},
Abstract = {The structural account of causation derives inter alia from
Herbert Simon's work on causal order and was developed in
Hoover's Causality in Macroeconomics and earlier articles.
The structural account easily connects to, enriches, and
illuminates graphical or Bayes net approaches to causal
representation and is able to handle modular, nonmodular,
linear, and nonlinear causal systems. The representation is
used to illuminate the mutual relationship between causal
structure and counterfactuals, particularly addressing the
role of counterfactuals in Woodward's manipulationist
account of causation and Cartwright's attack on 'impostor
counterfactuals'.},
Doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574131.003.0016},
Key = {fds285660}
}
@misc{fds285658,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Microfoundations and the Ontology of Macroeconomics},
Booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Year = {2009},
Month = {September},
ISBN = {9780195189254},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195189254.003.0014},
Abstract = {The typical concerns of macroeconomics-such as national
output, employment and unemployment, inflation, interest
rates, and the balance of payments-are among the oldest in
economics, having been dominant among the problems addressed
by both the mercantilists and classical economists, such as
David Hume, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, as well as even
earlier writers. These concerns co-existed with ones that
are now regarded as characteristically microeconomic, such
as the theory of prices exemplified in the labor theory of
value of the classical economists or the theory of marginal
utility of the early neoclassical economists. Questions
about the relationship between these two groups of concerns
could hardly be articulated until a categorical distinction
between macroeconomics and microeconomics had been drawn.
This article asks whether there is a successful ontology of
macroeconomics. It also discusses the implications that this
ontology has for practical macroeconomics.},
Doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195189254.003.0014},
Key = {fds285658}
}
@misc{fds285661,
Author = {Hoover, KD and Demiralp, S and Perez, SJ},
Title = {Empirical Identification of the Vector Autoregression: The
Causes and Effects of US M2},
Pages = {37-58},
Booktitle = {The Methodology and Practice of Econometrics: A Festschrift
in Honour of David F. Hendry},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press},
Year = {2009},
Month = {September},
ISBN = {9780199237197},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199237197.003.0002},
Abstract = {The M2 monetary aggregate is monitored by the Federal
Reserve, using a broad brush theoretical analysis and an
informal empirical analysis. This chapter illustrates
empirical identification of an eleven-variable system, in
which M2 and the factors that the Fed regards as causes and
effects are captured in a vector autoregression. Taking
account of cointegration, the methodology combines recent
developments in graph-theoretical causal search algorithms
with a general-to-specific search algorithm to identify a
fully specified structural vector autoregression (SVAR). The
SVAR is used to examine the causes and effects of M2 in a
variety of ways. The chapter concludes that while the Fed
has rightly identified a number of special factors that
influence M2 and while M2 detectably affects other important
variables, there is 1) little support for the core
quantity-theoretic approach to M2 used by the Fed; and 2) M2
is a trivial linkage in the transmission mechanism from
monetary policy to real output and inflation.},
Doi = {10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199237197.003.0002},
Key = {fds285661}
}
@misc{fds285655,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Milton Friedman’s stance: The methodology of causal
realism},
Pages = {303-320},
Booktitle = {The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the
Milton Friedman Legacy},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Editor = {Uskali Mäki},
Year = {2009},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780521867016},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581427.014},
Abstract = {The God of Abraham; the methodology of Marshall The
philosopher Bas Van Fraassen opens his Terry Lectures
(published as The Empirical Stance) with an anecdote:
“When Pascal died, a scrap of paper was found in the
lining of his coat. On it was written ‘The God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers’” (Van
Fraassen 2002, 1). Pascal's God talks and wrestles with men;
Descartes's God is a creature of metaphysics. Analogously,
with respect to the “Methodology of positive economics”
(F53) there are two Friedmans. Most of the gallons of ink
spilled in interpreting Friedman's essay have treated it as
a philosophical work. This is true, for example, for those
who have interpreted it as an exemplar of instrumentalism,
Popperian falsificationism, conventionalism, positivism, and
so forth. And it is even true for those critics, such as
Samuelson (1963), whose credentials as an economist are
otherwise secure. Mayer (1993a, 1995, 2003) and Hands (2003)
remind us that Friedman was philosophically unsophisticated,
and in the essay Friedman tried a fall with other
economists, not with philosophers. The origin of the essay
was the quotidian practice of economics, not abstract
epistemology. To know the Friedman of the economists, I
propose to read the essay in light of Friedman (and
Schwartz's) A Monetary History of the United States,
1867–1960 (1963a) and “Money and business cycles”
(1963b), perhaps his most characteristic economic
investigations. My point is not that there is a particular
philosophers' position that can be contrasted with a
particular economists' (or even Friedman's)
position.},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511581427.014},
Key = {fds285655}
}
@misc{fds211917,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {“Probability and Structure in Econometric
Models”},
Pages = {497-513.},
Booktitle = {The Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Logic,
Methodology and Philosophy of Science.},
Publisher = {King's College Publications},
Year = {2009},
Key = {fds211917}
}
@misc{fds211930,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {“Causality in Economics and Econometrics”},
Series = {2nd edition},
Booktitle = {The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics},
Publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan},
Editor = {Steven Durlauf},
Year = {2008},
Key = {fds211930}
}
@misc{fds285651,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Econometrics as observation: The lucas critique and the
nature of econometric inference},
Pages = {297-314},
Booktitle = {The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2007},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780521883504},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819025.021},
Abstract = {Kevin Hoover (1955–) received a D.Phil. in economics from
Oxford University after an undergraduate major in
philosophy, and his work reflects this dual competence. He
has contributed both to contemporary economics (especially
macroeconomics) and to economic methodology, serving for a
decade as the editor of The Journal of Economic Methodology.
After more than two decades at the University of California,
Davis, Hoover is now a professor of economics and a
professor of philosophy at Duke University. The Lucas
Critique: Perhaps the principal challenge to the use of
econometric models in economic analysis is the policy
non-invariance argument, popularly known as the ‘Lucas
critique’. Robert Lucas (1976) attacks the use of
econometric models as bases for the evaluation of policy on
the grounds that the estimated equations of such models are
unlikely to remain invariant to the very changes in policy
that the economist seeks to evaluate. The argument is
originally cast as an implication of rational expectations.
Among the constraints people face are the policy rules of
the government. If people are rational, then, when these
rules change, and if the change is correctly perceived, they
take proper account of the change in adjusting their
behavior. The rational expectations hypothesis implies that
changes in policy will in fact be correctly perceived up to
a serially uncorrelated error.},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511819025.021},
Key = {fds285651}
}
@misc{fds285656,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {The past as the Future: The Marshallian approach to post
Walrasian econometrics},
Pages = {239-257},
Booktitle = {Post Walrasian Macroeconomics: Beyond the Dynamic Stochastic
General Equilibrium Model},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
Year = {2006},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780521865487},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617751.014},
Abstract = {The popular image of the scientific revolution usually pits
young revolutionaries against old conservatives. Freeman
Dyson (2004, p. 16) observes that, in particle physics in
the mid twentieth century, something had to change. But in
the revolution of quantum electrodynamics, Einstein, Dirac,
Heisenberg, Born, and Schödinger were old revolutionaries,
while the winners, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, were
young conservatives. Post Walrasian economics is not a
doctrine, but a slogan announcing that something has to
change. Most of the self-conscious efforts to forge a Post
Walrasian economics are due to old radicals. Here I want to
explore the space of the young conservative: the future is
past, particularly in the methodology of Alfred Marshall’s
essay, ‘The Present Position of Economics’ (1885). The
radical approach identifies the problem as Walrasian theory
and seeks to replace it with something better and altogether
different. The conservative approach says that theory is not
the problem. The problem is rather to establish an empirical
discipline that connects theory to the world. Marshall’s
methodology places the relationship between theory and
empirical tools on center stage. In North America, if not in
Europe, the dominant tools of macro econometrics are the
vector auto regression (VAR) and calibration techniques.
These techniques reached their current status as the result
of two nearly simultaneous reactions to the Cowles
Commission program, which dominated macro econometrics
during the two decades 1950-70. These are the famous Lucas
critique, and the practically influential, if less storied,
Sims critique.},
Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511617751.014},
Key = {fds285656}
}
@misc{fds347022,
Author = {Hoover, KD},
Title = {Is there a place for rational expectations in keynes’s
general theory?},
Pages = {219-237},
Booktitle = {A 'Second Edition' of the General Theory},
Year = {2006},
Month = {January},
ISBN = {9780415406994},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203980316-28},
Abstract = {Keynes distinguishes between long-term and short-term
expectations (G. T.: 46-7). The distinction mirrors
Marshall's distinction between the long run, in which
factors of production are all variable, and the short run,
in which the firm's capital equipment is fixed. Keynes
argues that an entrepreneur consults his long-term
expectations in determining the amount of his investment in
plant and machinery, and consults his short-term
expectations in determining the scale of his current
output.},
Doi = {10.4324/9780203980316-28},
Key = {fds347022}
}
%% Other
@misc{fds344811,
Author = {Goodwin, C and Weintraub, ER and Hoover, KD and Caldwell,
B},
Title = {John maynard keynes of bloomsbury: Four short
talks},
Year = {2019},
Month = {February},
Key = {fds344811}
}
@misc{fds211911,
Author = {K.D. Hoover},
Title = {The Uses of Economics: Past and Future , special issue of
History of Political Economy.},
Publisher = {Duke University Press},
Editor = {K.D. Hoover},
Year = {2011},
Abstract = {A special issue of the journal History of Political Economy
arising from the conference celebrating the joint 40th
anniversary of the journal and of the editorship of its
founding editor, Craufurd Goodwin.},
Key = {fds211911}
}
| |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Economics * Faculty * Research * Staff * Master's * Ph.D. * Reload * Login | ||
