Abstract
AbstractThe 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.
Funder
H2020 European Research Council
Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference91 articles.
1. Abrevaya, J., & Puzzello, L. (2012). Taxes, cigarette consumption, and smoking intensity: Comment. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1751–1763.
2. Adda, J., & Cornaglia, F. (2006). Taxes, cigarette consumption, and smoking intensity. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1013–1028.
3. Adda, J., & Cornaglia, F. (2010). The effect of bans and taxes on passive smoking. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 1–32.
4. Adda, J., & Cornaglia, F. (2013). Taxes, cigarette consumption, and smoking intensity: Reply. American Economic Review, 103(7), 3102–3114.
5. Akerlof, G. A. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. The American Economic Review, 81(2), 1–19.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献