Response to Henschen: causal pluralism in macroeconomics

Mariusz Maziarz , Robert Mróz


In his recent paper in the Journal of Economic Methodology, Tobias Henschen puts forth a manipulationist definition of macroeconomic causality that strives for adequacy. As the notion of ‘adequacy’ remains underdeveloped in that paper, in this study we offer a discussion of what it means for a definition of causality to be adequate to macroeconomics. One of the meanings of adequacy is that the definition of causality describes the types of relations for which macroeconomic causal models stand for. On this understanding of adequacy, we take issue with Henschen’s claim. We argue that his manipulationist definition is only applicable to a sample of causal models used by macroeconomists. There are other sets of macroeconomic causal models to which probabilistic and mechanistic definitions seem more adequate. We show relevant examples to support this claim and conclude that a moderate causal pluralism is an adequate stance with respect to macroeconomic causal models.
Author Mariusz Maziarz (ES) - [inna]
Mariusz Maziarz,,
- Faculty of Economic Sciences
- inna
, Robert Mróz - University of Warsaw (UW)
Robert Mróz,,
Journal seriesJournal of Economic Methodology, ISSN 1350-178X, e-ISSN 1469-9427, (N/A 100 pkt)
Issue year2020
Publication size in sheets0.7
Keywords in EnglishCausal inference, macroeconomics, causal pluralism, probabilistic causality, mechanistic causality
ASJC Classification2001 Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Languageen angielski
Maziarz_Mroz_Response_to_Henschen_causal.pdf 1,57 MB
Score (nominal)100
Score sourcejournalList
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2018 = 0.695; WoS Impact Factor: 2017 = 0.884 (2)
Citation count*2 (2020-08-12)
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.