Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:55 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
[Posted on behalf of Bob Goldfard. -- RBE]
In response to my "revised Schulz assertion" Roy Weintraub asked:
> "Just what might you mean by progress when you use it in in this
> sentence?"
Good question. I have not read Morgan/Morrison, nor am I sure I
have a good answer for Weintraub, but for the sake of provoking more
discussion, here goes:
I think of "progress" in a "modelling tradition/approach" as the
ability of that approach to widen the range of "interesting/relevant"
phenomena it is able to provide "within modelling framework"
explanations for.
While I am not a historian of thought, I will nonetheless offer an
example just to (again) try to help provoke discussion. In my earlier
life as a labor economist, I thought a lot about the well-documented
existence of large wage differentials "for the same job" within a
geographical labor market. As a "neoclassical approach to labor
economics sympathizer," I would have viewed it as important
progress for that modelling approach if the "neoclassical view"
could produce a ("reasonably convincing in the context of that
framework") explanation for the apparent continuing existence of
those same-job-in-the-same-geographical-market wage
differentials. This would widen the range of interesting/relevant
phenomena the framework was providing explanations for....
(NOTE: I used so many quotation marks in the above paragraphs in
response to Weintraub's criticism that I had been "quotation-mark
deficient.")
Bob Goldfarb
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|