:: Life Of Dave ::

Economaths

I'm very pleased to see some high profile folks addressing the whole 'math in economics' question. Noah Smith wrote a rather lengthy essay on why he doesn't find the insane math some economists use to be particularly helpful.

Math can also be used as obscurantism; if every paper in a field starts with a dense thicket of formal statements and functional equations, it will be difficult for even very smart outsiders to come in and evaluate what the people in a field are doing with their time. Again, I doubt all but the most cynical macroeconomists would be intentionally obscurantist; they would just be subtly rewarded for doing things that ended up having an obscurantist result.
Paul Krugman responds by noting that math can offer a clarity that words might not, but acknowledges that "[w]hat is true is that all too many economists have lost sight of this purpose; they treat their models as The Truth, and/or judge each others’ work by how hard the math is."

One of the things that every intro to econometrics class tries to instill in students is the idea that the formula is there to represent a well-thought-out model. You don't just throw math at the problem until it goes away. However, this seems often to be the last time that point gets made. I sincerely hope this conversation leads to some reflection among economists about the role math is playing in their work.