Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:21:57.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MILTON FRIEDMAN’S EMPIRICAL APPROACH TO ECONOMICS: SEARCHING FOR SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY WHILE SHAPING THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2022

Camila Orozco Espinel Open the ORCID record for Camila Orozco Espinel [Opens in a new window]
Camila Orozco Espinel*
Affiliation:
Camila Orozco Espinel: University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Milton Friedman is usually presented as an economist characterized by his empirical approach to economics. His binary classification of economics into positive means and normative ends relies on the empirical content of predictions. Throughout his career, he used extensive, data-based statistical techniques. While important scholarly attention has been devoted to Friedman’s academic and political trajectories, his methodological prescriptions, and the development of economics at the University of Chicago, we know much less about the interplay of these elements. This paper proposes an intertwined reading of them. My aim is threefold. First, to understand Friedman’s work and methodological choices, I relate his empirical approach to his early training in statistics. Second, I articulate Friedman’s understanding of economics as an empirical policy science in the process of building the image of economists as neutral advisers in the policy-making process. Third, I claim that Friedman’s empirical methodological framework, developed while he was in the Economics Department of the University of Chicago, established the guidelines for an institutional long-term project that shaped it.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 600 - 621
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the History of Economics Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to David Teira for his very helpful comments on previous versions of this paper, and for his encouragements. I thank the JHET reviewers for their time in evaluation of my work and for their useful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Abend, Gabriel. 2014. “The Meaning of ‘Theory.’” Sociology Theory 26 (2): 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. 1934. The New Scientific Spirit. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E., and Cherrier, Béatrice. 2017. “The Age of the Applied Economist.” History of Political Economy 49 (Suppl.): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E., and Medema, Steven G.. 2009a. “On the Definition of Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (1): 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E., and Medema, Steven G.. 2009b. “Defining Economics: The Long Road to Acceptance of the Robbins Definition.” Economica 76 (1): 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76 (2): 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1991. “Milton Friedman 1912–.” In Shils, Edward, ed., Remembering the University of Chicago: Teachers, Scientists, and Scholars. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 138–146.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1993. “Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 101 (3): 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S., Landes, Elisabeth M., and Michael, Robert T.. 1977. “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political Economy 85 (6): 1141–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, James Washington. 1945. “A Report on an Experiment by an Ad Hoc Consensus Committee.” American Economic Review 35 (2): 422–447.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Michael A. 1990. “American Economic Expertise from the Great War to the Cold War: Some Initial Observations.” Journal of Economic History 50 (2): 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Michael A. 2001. A Perilous Progress: Economists and Public Purpose in Twentieth-Century America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Michael A. 2008. “A Brief History of the American Economic Association.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (5): 1007–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Jeff. 2017. “2016 HES Presidential Address: Statistical Inference in Economics, 1920–1965: Changes in Meaning and Practice.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 39 (2): 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjerkholt, Olav. 2014. “Trygve Haavelmo at the Cowles Commission.” Econometric Theory 31 (1): 1–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boumans, Marcel. 2016. “Friedman and the Cowles Commission.” In Hammond, J. Daniel, ed., Milton Friedman: Contributions to Economics and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Wacquant, Loïc. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Breslau, Daniel. 2005. “The Real and the Imaginary in Economics.” In Steinmetz, George, ed., The Politics of Method in Human Sciences. Positivism and Its Epistemological Others. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1976. “The 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics.” Science 194 (4265): 594–596, 648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calkins, Robert D. 1953. “Economic Research in Relation to Public Policy.” American Economic Review 43 (2): 429–441.Google Scholar
Cherrier, Béatrice. 2011. “The Lucky Consistency of Milton Friedman’s Science and Politics, 1933–1963.” In Van Horn, Robert, Mirowski, Philip, and Stapleford, Thomas A., eds., Building Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christ, Carl F. 1951. “A Test of an Econometric Model for the United States 1921–1947.” In Conference on Business Cycles. New York: NBER, pp. 35–130.Google Scholar
Christ, Carl F. 1952. The History of the Cowles 1932–1952. Chicago: Cowles Commission.Google Scholar
Christ, Carl F. 1994. “The Cowles Commission’s Contributions to Econometrics at Chicago, 1939–1955.” Journal of Economic Literature 32 (1): 30–59.Google Scholar
Coats, Alfred William. 1985. “The American Economic Association and the Economics Profession.” Journal of Economic Literature 23 (4): 1697–1727.Google Scholar
Colander, David. 1992. “Retrospectives : The Lost Art of Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6 (3): 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Julio H. 2012. “Milton Friedman: A Bibliography.” Laissez-Faire 36–37 (1): 97–122.Google Scholar
Cole, Stephen. 1983. “The Hierarchy of the Sciences?” American Journal of Sociology 89 (1): 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on the Focusing of Informed Opinion. 1944. “Report of the Committee on the Focusing of Informed Opinion.” American Economic Review 34 (1): 424–425.Google Scholar
Cord, Robert A., and Hammond, J. Daniel, eds. 2016. Milton Friedman: Contributions to Economics and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Despres, Émile, Hart, Albert G., Friedman, Milton, Samuelson, Paul A., and Wallace, Donald H. 1950. “The Problem of Economic Instability.” American Economic Review 40 (4): 501–538.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Neil. 1985. “Popper and the LSE Economists.” In de Marchi, Neil, ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–166.Google Scholar
De Vroey, Michel. 2009. “On the Right Side for the Wrong Reason: Friedman on the Marshall–Walras Divide.” In Maki, Uskali, ed., The Methodology of Positive Economics. Milton Friedman’s Essay Fifty Years Later. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–346.Google Scholar
Dimand, Robert W. 2019. “The Cowles Commission and Foundation for Research in Economics.” Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, 2207. New Haven: Cowles Foundation, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Dwyer, Gerald P. 2016. “Milton Friedman. A Bayesian?” In Cord, Robert A. and Hammond, J. Daniel, eds., Milton Friedman: Contributions to Economics and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 1998. “Entrenching Disciplinary Competence: The Role of General Education and Graduate Study in Chicago.” History of Political Economy 30 (Suppl.): 132–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 2010a. “Introduction.” In Emmett, Ross B., ed., The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 2010b. “Specializing in Interdisciplinarity: The Committee on Social Thought as the University of Chicago’s Antidote to Compartmentalization in the Social Sciences.” History of Political Economy 42 (Suppl.): 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 2010c, ed. The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, Ross B. 2011. “Sharpening Tools in the Workshop: The Workshop System and the Chicago School’s Success.” In Van Horn, Robert, Mirowski, Philip, and Stapleford, Thomas A., eds., Bulding Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Roy Jacob. 1987. A History of Econometrics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Erickson, Paul. 2017. “Theorizing Application: The Case of Evolutionary Biology’s Theory of Games.” History of Political Economy 49 (Suppl.): 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, Neil R., Hendry, David F., and Hood, Stedman B.. 2016. “Milton Friedman as an Empirical Modeler.” In Cord, Robert A. and Hammond, J. Daniel, eds., Milton Friedman: Contributions to Economics and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion. 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade-Gourinchas, Marion. 2001. “Politics, Institutional Structures, and the Rise of Economics : A Comparative Study.” Theory and Society 30 (3): 397–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, William J., and Boland, Lawrence A.. 1983. “An Essay on the Foundations of Friedman’s Methodology.” American Economic Review 73 (1): 129–144.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1940. “Book Review of Business Cycles in the United States of America by J. Timbergen.” American Economic Review 30 (3): 657–660.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1946. “Lange on Price Flexibility and Employment.” American Economic Review 36 (4): 613–631.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1949. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” Journal of Political Economy 57 (6): 463–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1951. “Comment.” In Conference on Business Cycles. New York: NBER, pp. 107–114.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1962. Price Theory: A Provisional Text. London: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1967. “Value Judgments in Economics.” In Hook, Sidney, ed., Human Values and Economic Policy. New York: New York University Press, pp. 85–93.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1986. “Economists and Economic Policy.” Economic Inquiry 24 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Friedman, Rose D.. 1998. Two Lucky People. Memoirs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Kuznets, Simon. 1945. Income from Independent Professional Practice. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Meiselman, David. 1963. “The Relative Stability of Monetary Velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States, 1897–1958.” In Brown, E. C., ed., Stabilization Policies, Prepared for the Commission on Money and Credit. Hoboken: Prentice Hall, pp. 165–268.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Savage, Jimmie. 1948. “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Journal of Political Economy 56 (4): 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Savage, Jimmie. 1952. “The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy 60 (6): 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Schwartz, Anna. 1963. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Schwartz, Anna. 1970. Monetary Statistics of the United States: Estimates, Sources, Methods. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Schwartz, Anna. 1982. Monetary Trends in the United States and the United Kingdom: Their Relation to Income, Prices, and Interest Rates, 1867–1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Wallis, W. Allen. 1942. “The Empirical Derivation of Inference Functions.” In Lange, Oscar, ed., Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 175–178.Google Scholar
Furner, Mary O. 1975. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865–1905. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Galbács, Peter. 2019. “Friedman’s Instrumentalism in F53. A Weberian Reading.” Journal of Philosophical Economics 12 (2): 31–53.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 1999a. “Introduction.” In Hammond, David, ed., The Legacy of Milton Friedman as a Teacher. Volume I. Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. ix–xli.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel, ed. 1999b. The Legacy of Milton Friedman as Teacher. Volume 1. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel, ed. 1999c. The Legacy of Milton Friedman as Teacher. Volume 2. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 2010. “The Development of Post-War Chicago Price Theory.” In Emmett, Ross B., ed., The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 7–21.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 2019. “Columbia Roots of the Chicago School: The Case of Milton Friedman.” In Cole, Julio H., ed., A Companion to Milton Friedman. Guatemala: Universidad Francisco Marroquín, pp. 157–191.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel, and Hammond, Claire H., eds. 2006. Making Chicago Price Theory: Friedman-Stigler Correspondence 1945–1957. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 2003. “Did Milton Friedman’s Methodology License the Formalist Revolution?” Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4): 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harberger, Arnold, and Edwards, Sebastian. Forthcoming. “The Department of Economics at the University of Chicago, 1947–1982.” In Cord, R. A., ed., The Palgrave Companion to Chicago Economics. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hildreth, Clifford. 1985. “The Cowles Commission in Chicago: 1939–1955.” Discussion Paper No. 225, October 1985. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Abraham, and de Marchi, Neil. 1991. Milton Friedman, Economics in Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Howson, Susan. 2011. Lionel Robbins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, John Neville. [1891] 1955. The Scope and Method of Political Economy. New York: Kelley & Millman.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1957. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Louzek, Marek. 2011. “The Battle of Methods in Economics: The Classical Methodenstreit—Menger vs. Schmoller.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (2): 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, Uskali, ed. 2009. The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven G. 1997. “The Trial of Homo Economicus: What Law and Economics Tells Us About the Development of Economic Imperialism.” History of Political Economy 29 (Suppl.): 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven G., and Mercuro, Nicholas. 2000. Economics and the Law: From Posner to Post Modernism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1991. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. “Cowles Changes Allegiance: From Empiricism to Cognition as Intuitive Statistics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 24 (2): 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Rutherford, Malcolm. 1998. “American Economics: The Character of the Transformation.” History of Political Economy 30 (Suppl.): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olkin, Ingram. 1991. “A Conversation with W. Allen Wallis.” Statistical Science 6 (2): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orozco Espinel, Camila. 2017. “Homogénéiser La Profession Pour Faire Science ? L’économie Aux États-Unis Après La Seconde Guerre Mondiale.” Revue d’histoire Des Sciences Humaines 31: 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patinkin, Don. 1981. Essays on and in the Chicago Tradition. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Pinzón-Fuchs, Erich. 2016. “Macroeconometric Modeling as a ‘Photographic Description of Reality’ or as an ‘Engine for the Discovery of Concrete Truth’? Friedman and Klein on Statistical Illusions.” CHOPE Working Papers Series, No. 2016–26.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M. 1988. The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M. 1997. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reder, Melvin W. 1982. “Chicago Economics: Permanence and Change.” Journal of Economic Literature 20 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Second edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 1994. Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2010. “Chicago Economics and Institutionalism.” In Emmett, Ross, ed., The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2013. The Institutionalist Movement in American Economics, 1918–1947. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, Warren J., ed. 1976. The Chicago School of Political Economy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Business Studies.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 2007. “Classical and Neoclassical Harmonies and Dissonances.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (2): 243–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliesser, Eric. 2011. “The Surprising Weberian Roots to Milton Friedman’s Methodology.” In Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W. J., Hartmann, S., Uebel, Th, and Weber, M., eds., Explanation, Prediction and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. New York: Springer, pp. 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliesser, Eric. 2012. “Inventing Paradigms, Monopoly, Methodology, and Mythology at ‘Chicago.’” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (1): 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliesser, Eric. 2015. “The Separation of Economics from Virtue: A Historical-Conceptual Introduction.” In Baker, J. A. and White, M. D., eds., Economics and the Virtues: Building a New Moral Foundation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–164.Google Scholar
Schliesser, Eric. 2019. “Walter Lippmann: The Prophet of Liberalism and the Road Not Taken.” Journal of Contextual Economics (JCE)—Schmollers Jahrbuch, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 139 (2–4): 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. “Consensus in Science.” In Cao, Tian Yu, ed., The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Volume 10: Philosophy of Science. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University, pp. 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleford, Thomas A. 2011. “Milton Friedman, Institutionalism, and the Science of History.” In van Horn, Robert, Mirowski, Philip, and Stapleford, Thomas, eds., Building Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmetz, George. 2005. “Introduction.” In Steinmetz, George, ed., The Politics of Method in Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, George Joseph. 1965. Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Teira, David. 2007. “Milton Friedman, the Statistical Methodologist.” History of Political Economy 39 (3): 511–528.Google Scholar
Teira, David. 2009. “Why Friedman’s Methodology Did Not Generate Consensus Among Economists.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2): 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teira, David, and Zamora, Jesús. 2009. “The Politics of Positivism: Disinterested Predictions from Interested Agents.” In Mäki, Uskali, ed., The Methodology of Positive Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–214.Google Scholar
Van Horn, Robert, Mirowski, Philip, and Stapleford, Thomas, eds. 2011. Building Chicago Economics. New Perspectives History, America’s Most Powerful Economics Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar