Response to Henschen: causal pluralism in macroeconomics

Maziarz, Mariusz; Mróz, Robert

doi:10.1080/1350178x.2019.1675897

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such arguments are opposed with counterexamples showing that economists put forward causal conclusions based on a single type of evidence. In our reply to Henschen's (2018) support for a version of the manipulationist definition, Mróz and I (Maziarz & Mróz, 2020) showed that at least in some areas of macroeconometrics, causal inferences are put forth exclusively on the ground of differencemaking evidence while other economists support their causal conclusions with mechanistic evidence only. In Philosophy of Causality in Economics: Causal Inferences and Policy Proposals (Maziarz, 2020), I delivered additional examples of studies drawing causal conclusions from either difference-making or mechanistic evidence and interpreted the practice in line with causal pluralism (i.e., pluralism about concepts of causality) on the ground that different types of evidence give support for different kinds of causal claims (see Reiss, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Resolving empirical controversies with mechanistic evidence

Maziarz

2021

Synthese

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of econometric modeling are fragile in the sense that minor changes in estimation techniques or sample can lead to statistical models that support inconsistent causal hypotheses. The fragility of econometric results undermines making conclusive inferences from the empirical literature. I argue that the program of evidential pluralism, which originated in the context of medicine and encapsulates to the normative reading of the Russo-Williamson Thesis that causal claims need the support of both difference-making and mechanistic evidence, offers a ground for resolving empirical disagreements. I analyze a recent econometric controversy regarding the tax elasticity of cigarette consumption and smoking intensity. Both studies apply plausible estimation techniques but report inconsistent results. I show that mechanistic evidence allows for discriminating econometric models representing genuine causal relations from accidental dependencies in data. Furthermore, I discuss the differences between biological and social mechanisms and mechanistic evidence across the disciplines. I show that economists mainly rely on mathematical models to represent possible mechanisms (i.e., mechanisms that could produce a phenomenon of interest). Still, claiming the actuality of the represented mechanisms requires establishing that crucial assumptions of these models are descriptively adequate. I exemplify my approach to assessing the quality of mechanistic evidence in economics with an analysis of two models of rational addiction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%