Faculty Database Philosophy Arts & Sciences Duke University |
||
HOME > Arts & Sciences > Philosophy > 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} } %% 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} } %% 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} } | |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Philosophy * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Reload * Login |