Dienstag, 12. August 2014

Zum fehlenden Makro-Konsens

"Why can’t we agree? How is it possible that there are so many different views among economists about the type of shock we experienced, how it was transmitted through the economy, and why it’s been so hard to recover? One reason is that most of the time our macro econometric models do not give answers that are clear enough to settle questions – the non-experimental nature of the data we are forced to use in carrying out tests makes the search for precise answers very difficult.

Even when the econometric models do give clear answers, those answers are often ignored in the public debate over these issues. This is due, in large part, to economists who are willing to ignore clear empirical evidence in order to sow confusion and promote ideological goals, and the culture within the profession that does little to penalize such behavior.

If we don’t have the ability to settle debates decisively with empirical evidence, then each side will retain its beliefs and preconceptions. Perhaps “big data” and digital technology will help, but it’s hard to foresee these problems going away anytime soon. What we can do is change the professional culture that allows some economists to create confusion for political reasons through distortions and misrepresentations of the evidence that does exist."
Ich sehe den ersten Punkt auch als Hauptursache. Experimente sind in der Makroökonomik unmöglich und die beobachteten Daten sind fast immer nicht dazu geeignet zwischen allen möglichen strukturellen Modellen zu unterscheiden.

Wird "big data" helfen? Ich glaube kaum ... am Grundproblem wird sich auch dadurch nichts ändern. Ggf. könnten bessere und mehr Datenquellen allerdings helfen, Messfehler bei makroökonomischen Daten zu reduzieren.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen