No abstract

In this paper a critique to Cartwright's approaches of capacities and nomological machines is carried out.This approaches share the idea that invariant knowledge is crucial for achieving policy purposes. However, it is shown that socioeconomic processes do not fit to the logic of stable causal factors, but they are more suited to the logic of "open-ended results". On the basis of this ontological variation it is argued that ex-ante interventions are not appropriate in the socioeconomic realm. On the contrary, they must be understood in a "dynamic" sense. Finally, derivational robustness analysis is proposed as a useful tool for overcoming the problem of "overconstraint", a typical problem of economic models.Keywords: invariance, intervention, nomological machines, capacities, derivational robustness analysis.RESUMEN: En el presente trabajo se hará una crítica a los enfoques de capacidades y máquinas nomológicas propuestos por Cartwright. Estos enfoques comparten la idea de que un conocimiento invariante es crucial para el éxito de una política. No obstante, aquí se mostrará que los procesos socioeconómicos no son compatibles con la lógica de los factores causales estables, sino con la lógica de los "resultados de final abierto". Sobre la base de esta variante ontológica se argumentará que las intervenciones ex-ante no son apropiadas en el reino de lo socioeconó-mico. Por el contrario, deberían ser entendidas en un sentido "dinámico". Finalmente, se propondrá al análisis de robustez derivacional como una herramienta útil para superar el problema de "sobre-restricción", un problema típico de los modelos económicos.Palabras clave: invarianza, intervención, máquinas nomológicas, capacidades, análisis de robustez derivacional.

The use of unrealistic assumptions in Economics is usually defended not only for pragmatic reasons, but also because of the intrinsic difficulties in determining the degree of realism of assumptions. Additionally, the criterion used for evaluating economic models is associated with their ability to provide accurate predictions. This mode of thought involves –at least implicitly– a commitment to the existence of unvarying invariant factors or regularities. Contrary to this, the present paper presents a critique to the use of invariant knowledge in economics. One reason for this analysis lies in the fact that economic phenomena are not compatible with the logic of invariance, but with the logic of "possibility trees" or "open-ended results". The other reason is that the use of invariant knowledge may entail both external validity problems and negative exposures to a "black swan". Alternatively, an approach where models are understood as possible scenarios is proposed. It is argued that the realism of (substantive) assumptions is crucial here, since it helps to ascertain the degree of resemblance between the different models and the target system.

No abstract