Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:39:16.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Models and Policy Advice: Theory Choice or Moral Choice?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Robert Evans
Robert Evans
Affiliation:
Cardiff Scholl of Social Science Cardiff University, 50 Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the interaction between economic models and policy advice through a case study of the U.K. government's Panel of Independent Forecasters. The Panel, which met for the first time in February 1993, was part of the government's response to the policy vacuum created by its departure from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The paper focuses on the policy recommendations made by the Panel and their foundation in economic models. It is argued that, because of their ambiguity, economic models do not provide an “objective” basis for policy making. Rather, they provide a level epistemological basis for debating the various social, political, and moral theories that can be used to frame economic policy. The paper concludes that although economic models often serve to depoliticize economic issues, they also have the potential to do exactly the opposite — namely, repoliticize them by connecting economics to wider social and moral debates.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Summer 1999 , pp. 351 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

*

This paper was originally presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science held at Tucson, Arizona, in October 1997 and has benefited from the comments of all those who participated in the sessions on “Models as Mediators.” I am particularly grateful to Sergio Sismondo for taking on the task of coordinating this special issue and also for steering my own contribution through several revisions to eventual acceptance. In addition, Brian Martin and two anonymous referees provided both encouragement and constructive criticism that greatly improved the paper. Of course, any errors that remain are mine and mine alone.

References

7. Bibliography

Barnes, B. 1988. The Nature of Power. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Britton, A. 1993. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993, 21–28. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Burrell, A., and Hall, S.. 1994. “A Comparison of Economic Forecasts,” Economic Outlook 18(2):29–35.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. 1992. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Congdon, T. 1993. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, February 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, February 1993, 25–32. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Currie, D. 1993. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993, 39–46. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Davies, G. 1993. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993, 47–60. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Evans, R. J. 1997a. “Soothsaying or Science? Falsification, Uncertainty and Social Change in Macroeconomic Modelling.” Social Studies of Science 23(3):395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. J. 1997b. “What Happens Next? Can Economic Forecasters Foretell the Future?” Ph.D. diss., University of Bath.Google Scholar
Evans, R. J. 1999. Macroeconomic Forecasting: A Sociological Appraisal. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., eds. 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layard, R., Nickell, S., and Jackman, R.. 1991. Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Layard, R., Nickell, S., and Jackman, R.. 1994. The Unemployment Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, B. 1979. The Bias of Science. Canberra: Society for Social Responsibility in Science.Google Scholar
Minford, P. 1993a. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993, 73–82. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Minford, P. 1993b. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993, 71–78. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Sentance, A. 1993a. ”Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, July 1993, 83–90. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Sentance, A. 1993b. “Submission to the Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993.” In Report of Panel of the Independent Forecasters, October 1993, 79–85. London: H.M. Treasury.Google Scholar
Shackley, S., and Wynne, B.. 1996. “Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Uncertainty.” Science, Technology and Human Values 21(3):275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. 1995. “Technology Assessment and Reflexive Social Learning: Observations from the Risk Field.” In Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, edited by Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J.. London: Pinter.Google Scholar