On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Alex Tabarrok wrote:
> Different types of empirical research are convincing to different people. I, and
> I gather Bryan, tend to like the type where a problem is approached from several
> different angles using perhaps relatively simple econometrics and is integrated with
> other types of evidence including historical evidence (non-quantitative empirics)
> and a modicum of theory told with a plausible story. The Bell Curve does well on
> this measure.
I disagree TBC meets these criteria. The problem isn't that they don't
use sophisticated methods; the problem is that they use very simple
methods and then discuss as if they've obtained a variety of deep
structural results. Again, let's suppose that M/H are completely wrong:
suppose all that matters for all the social outcomes they investigate is
income. Ability has no direct effect. How would we be able to tell
whether we live in such a world from the results in TBC? But M/H are
explicitly claiming we don't live in such a world, based mostly on their
own results.
> By the way, as a paradigmatic example of the first sort I would mention
> Friedman and Schwart'z A Monetary History of the United States. Chris, I wonder
> what you would say about the quality of this work? (And I mean today not circa
> 1965). I still think it is great even thought it fails test number 2 very badly.
I haven't read it so I can't comment. I'm not saying M/H are mistaken
because they don't use the flashiest new techniques, and there're
certainly lots of results in various literatures based on very simple
techniques that are quite compelling. I'm saying M/H misinterpret their
results. They do not show what M/H claim they show.
Chris Auld (403)220-4098
Economics, University of Calgary <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Calgary, Alberta, Canada <URL:http://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca/>
