ABSTRACT

In a recent special issue dedicated to the work of Dani Rodrik, Grüne-Yanoff and Marchionni [(2018). Modeling model selection in model pluralism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572] raise a potentially damning problem for Rodrik's suggestion that progress in economics should be understood and measured laterally, by a continuous expansion of new models. They argue that this could lead to an ‘embarrassment of riches’, i.e. the rapid expansion of our model library to such an extent that we become unable to choose between the available models, and thus needs to be solved to make ‘model pluralism’ viable. Drawing on Veit’s [(2019a). Model pluralism. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894897] ‘model pluralism’ account, this paper argues that model pluralism as a thesis about the relationship between science and nature undermines the very idea of a general model selection framework for policy making.

摘要

在最近的一期专刊中，专门介绍了 Dani Rodrik、Grüne-Yanoff 和 Marchionni [(2018) 的工作。模型多元化中的模型选择。经济方法学杂志，25（3），265-275。https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572] 对于罗德里克的建议提出了一个潜在的致命问题，即应该通过不断扩展新模型来横向理解和衡量经济学的进步。他们认为这可能会导致“财富的尴尬”，即我们的模型库迅速扩展到我们无法在可用模型之间进行选择的程度，因此需要解决以使“模型多元化”可行. 借鉴 Veit 的 [(2019a)。模式多元化。社会科学哲学, 50(2), 91–114。https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894897]“模型多元化”帐户，本文认为模型多元化作为关于科学与自然之间关系的论文破坏了政策制定的一般模型选择框架的想法。