In response to Mason Gaffney

I agree that there is a good portion of econometric work which is very
non-significant (as I am sure Deirdre can elaborate on), but I think it is
unfair to lay the blame with someone else -- in this case 'quants'.

'Redefining Progress' which Mason refers to is not shy of flexing
theireconometric muscle. For example a recent publication on the
Climate
Stewardship Act offers a very neat numerical result for how employment will
change in every US state for every five years until 2025... This may be
another case of 'GIGO' (Garbage in-Garbage Out), but it's a game played by
all economists.

Empirics comes in two forms - raw micro-data and indicators.
All the data Mason mentions are indicators, and the tragedy of the matter is
not the carelessness of 'quants' but the apathy of the economics discipline
as a whole to what these things actually mean.
 Every indicator has a very specific definition, in fact it is so precise
that no-one should, upon reading the statistical practices and manuals,
agree that GDP per capita is income per head as we think of it...
As the definition stands, and the data collection works, it is not the
income of anyone being measured.  Surprised? (I was, and I am working on
that topic at the moment)

Raw micro data, empirics and extra care when dealing with indicators are all
signs of good numerical historical work, just like a strong understanding of
sociology, history (of thought and reality) and economic writings makes for
good literary historical work. Both necessary for HET and policy, as well as
good economic analysis.

I stand by my point, that to do good pluralist science we must be willing to
listen to each other, and in this case that includes asking the 'quants' for
their definitions (of the indicators! not alpha's and beta's), and seeing
where good empirical work can take us. There is much to be had in empirical
work, but Mason is right, you cannot just grab and run with indicators,
until you know what they mean at least.

-Benjamin Mitra-Kahn