Revisando trabajos que anliazn el debate sobre la Macroeeconomía me econtré con este de Mankiw que había leído hace ya algún tiempo en una versión ya publicada en el Journal of ecoomic Perspective, pero que ahora lo veo en su versión documento de trabajo:
THE MACROECONOMIST AS SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER
N. Gregory Mankiw
Working Paper 12349, 2006
recuerdo que me gustó mucho el trabajo y recomiendo ampliamente su lectura, pero por el momento reproduzco parte de la introducción para que se den idea de la discusión que presenta (además de ponerla en perspectiva histórica)
.
"Economists like to strike the pose of a scientist. I know, because I often do it myself. When I teach undergraduates, I very consciously describe the field of economics as a science, so no student would start the course thinking he was embarking on some squishy academic endeavor. Our colleagues in the physics department ...may find it amusing that we view them as close cousins, but we are quick to remind anyone who will listen that economists formulate theories with mathematical precision, collect huge data sets on individual and aggregate behavior, and exploit the most sophisticated statistical techniques to reach empirical judgments that are free of bias and ideology (or so we like to think).
Having recently spent two years in Washington as an economic adviser at a time when the U.S. economy was struggling to pull out of a recession, I am reminded that the subfield of macroeconomics was born not as a science but more as a type of engineering. God put macroeconomists on earth not to propose and test elegant theories but to solve practical problems. (negritas mías) The problems He gave us, moreover, were not modest in dimension. The problem that gave birth to our field—the Great Depression of the 1930s— was an economic downturn of unprecedented scale, including incomes so depressed and unemployment so widespread that it is no exaggeration to say that the viability of the capitalist system was called in question.
This essay offers a brief history of macroeconomics, together with an evaluation of what we have learned. My premise is that the field has evolved through the efforts of two types of macroeconomist—those who understand the field as a type of engineering and those who would like it to be more of a science. Engineers are, first and foremost, problemsolvers. By contrast, the goal of scientists is to understand how the world works. The research emphasis of macroeconomists has varied over time between these two motives. While the early macroeconomists were engineers trying to solve practical problems, the macroeconomists of the past several decades have been more interested in developing analytic tools and establishing theoretical principles. These tools and principles, however, have been slow to find their way into applications. As the field of macroeconomics has evolved, one recurrent theme is the interaction—sometimes productive and sometimes
.... the story I tell is not one of good guys and bad guys. Neither scientists nor engineers have a claim to greater virtue. The story is also not one of deep thinkers and simple-minded plumbers. Science professors are typically no better at solving engineering problems than engineering professors are at solving scientific problems. In both fields, cutting-edge problems are hard problems, as well as intellectually challenging ones. Just as the world needs both scientists and engineers, it needs macroeconomists of both mindsets. But I believe that the discipline would advance more smoothly and fruitfully if macroeconomists always kept in mind that their field has a dual role."
THE MACROECONOMIST AS SCIENTIST AND ENGINEER
N. Gregory Mankiw
Working Paper 12349, 2006
recuerdo que me gustó mucho el trabajo y recomiendo ampliamente su lectura, pero por el momento reproduzco parte de la introducción para que se den idea de la discusión que presenta (además de ponerla en perspectiva histórica)
.
"Economists like to strike the pose of a scientist. I know, because I often do it myself. When I teach undergraduates, I very consciously describe the field of economics as a science, so no student would start the course thinking he was embarking on some squishy academic endeavor. Our colleagues in the physics department ...may find it amusing that we view them as close cousins, but we are quick to remind anyone who will listen that economists formulate theories with mathematical precision, collect huge data sets on individual and aggregate behavior, and exploit the most sophisticated statistical techniques to reach empirical judgments that are free of bias and ideology (or so we like to think).
Having recently spent two years in Washington as an economic adviser at a time when the U.S. economy was struggling to pull out of a recession, I am reminded that the subfield of macroeconomics was born not as a science but more as a type of engineering. God put macroeconomists on earth not to propose and test elegant theories but to solve practical problems. (negritas mías) The problems He gave us, moreover, were not modest in dimension. The problem that gave birth to our field—the Great Depression of the 1930s— was an economic downturn of unprecedented scale, including incomes so depressed and unemployment so widespread that it is no exaggeration to say that the viability of the capitalist system was called in question.
This essay offers a brief history of macroeconomics, together with an evaluation of what we have learned. My premise is that the field has evolved through the efforts of two types of macroeconomist—those who understand the field as a type of engineering and those who would like it to be more of a science. Engineers are, first and foremost, problemsolvers. By contrast, the goal of scientists is to understand how the world works. The research emphasis of macroeconomists has varied over time between these two motives. While the early macroeconomists were engineers trying to solve practical problems, the macroeconomists of the past several decades have been more interested in developing analytic tools and establishing theoretical principles. These tools and principles, however, have been slow to find their way into applications. As the field of macroeconomics has evolved, one recurrent theme is the interaction—sometimes productive and sometimes
.... the story I tell is not one of good guys and bad guys. Neither scientists nor engineers have a claim to greater virtue. The story is also not one of deep thinkers and simple-minded plumbers. Science professors are typically no better at solving engineering problems than engineering professors are at solving scientific problems. In both fields, cutting-edge problems are hard problems, as well as intellectually challenging ones. Just as the world needs both scientists and engineers, it needs macroeconomists of both mindsets. But I believe that the discipline would advance more smoothly and fruitfully if macroeconomists always kept in mind that their field has a dual role."
.
Dicho sea de paso, este es un debate de ya varios años, pero que la recesión actual ha acentuado. Y por cierto, habría que agregar que después de esta fase crítica que hemos vivido y que se llamará la "Gran Recesión", como lo he venido insistiendo en otros posts y en mis columnas, sguramente habrá cambios relevantes en la macro. Por cierto, en lo personal me ubicaría más como ingeniero (jajaja)....
4 comentarios:
Alejandro, a vuelo de pájaro podrías mencionar autores de macro que se ubiquen como engineers y científicos?
Por cierto, interesante idea!
la micro es una ciencia, la macro una religión
Anónimo uno.... es dificil decirlo y esta es una clasificaciónque aplica más a los academicos.... los que entran al gobierno de entrada deben ser más orientados a solución de problemas de política...... pensare una lista en la academia y te lo dire (jaja) aunque los que estamos en ella sabemos mas o menos quienes estan donde (jaja)
Anónimo dos.... la frase suena a un acto de fe (jajaja)
Publicar un comentario