In this paper I attempt to lay out the sources of conflict between the so-called “structural” and “experimentalist” camps in econometrics. Critics of the structural approach often assert that it produces results that rely on too many assumptions to be credible, and that the experimentalist approach provides an alternative that relies on fewer assumptions. Here, I argue that this is a false dichotomy. All econometric work relies heavily on a priori assumptions. The main difference between structural and experimental (or “atheoretic”) approaches is not in the number of assumptions but the extent to which they are made explicit.If I can return to this after finals week, I will try and add some comments regarding the content. For now, I just suggest that it is worth a read and some thought.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Structural vs Atheoretical Econometrics
Forthcoming in the Journal of Econometrics, by Michael Keane: