Response to Henschen: causal pluralism in macroeconomics. Issue 2 (2nd April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maziarz, Mariusz; Mróz, Robert
• Is Part Of: Journal of economic methodology. Volume 27:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 164
• Page End: 178
• Publication Date: 2020-04-02
• Subjects: Causal inference -- macroeconomics -- causal pluralism -- probabilistic causality -- mechanistic causality; Economics -- Methodology -- Periodicals; 330.072
• DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2019.1675897
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1350-178X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: 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.