Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T23:51:31.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

La critique d’ad hocité en économie. L’exemple des théories de la croissance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Stéphane Carcillo  and
Véronique Reiffers
Stéphane Carcillo
Affiliation:
MATISSE-SET, Universitéde Paris I / CNRS
Véronique Reiffers
Affiliation:
C3ED, Universitéde Versailles - St Quentin
Get access

Résumé

La critique d’ad hocité est courante en économie, mais elle reste confuse, reposant aussi bien sur des arguments d’ordre heuristique (fondements microéconomiques), que sur des arguments d’ordre empirique (ajustement d’une théorie aux faits). Si l’épistémologie d’inspiration poppérienne fourni des définitions utiles, quoique discutables, de l’ad hocité, une revue de quelques commentaires récents révèle un autre sens attribué par les économistes: une hypothèse qui manque de fondements empiriques tout en étant essentielle à la dérivation des certaines conclusions. Nous cherchons ensuite à déterminer dans quelle mesure les théories de la croissance endogène sont exposées à la critique d’ad hocité. Tout d’abord, s’il est impossible d’affirmer que certaines hypothèses communes à tous les modèles (rendements constants dans la production et forme des fonctions d’utilité) sont ad hoc d’un point de vue empirique ou heuristique, la véritable critique qui peut leur être adressée relève plutôt d’un manque de réalisme. Ensuite, la tentative d’ajustement du modèle néoclassique à l’absence de convergence internationale illustre la difficile application de l’ad hoc dans son acception empirique. Enfin, l’utilisation de l’agent représentatif dans les modèles de croissance en concurrence imparfaite est évaluée à la lumière d’une définition heuristique de l’ad hocité.

Summary

Summary

The criticism of adhocness is commonplace in economics, sometimes relying on heuristic arguments, sometimes on empirical arguments. If the Popperian epistemology provides useful, although debatable, concepts of ad hocness, a review of some recent comments reveals a different definition often used by economists: an assumption which lacks empirical content while essential to draw some conclusions. Then, we review criticisms recently addressed to endogenous growth theories. First, it appears that some important assumptions of these models (constant returns to scale in production, and the form of utility functions) are not ad hoc on the basis of the definition provided by the Popperian methodology. The underlying and only rationale of the criticisms stems rather from a lack of realism, which is typical of the general confusion in the debate between realism and adhocness. Second, the adjustment of the neoclassical growth model to the stylized fact of non-convergence exemplifies the difficulties in applying the most Popperian definitions to economics. At last, the heuristic approach to ad hocness proves once more to be useful in interpreting the status of the representative agents in endogenous growth models with monopolistic competition.

Keywords

assumptionsad hocad hocnessmethodologygrowth theoriesB41041hypothèsesad hocad hocitéméthodologiethéories de la croissanceB41041
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , 2001 , pp. 197 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2001 

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

**

MATISSE-SET, Université de Paris I / CNRS, 106-112 Bd de I’Hôpital, 75013 Paris. E-mail: carcillo@univparisl.fr

***

C3ED, Université de Versailles - St Quentin, 28 rue du refuge, 78000 Versailles.

*

Les auteurs remercient Philippe Le Gall, Muriel Pucci ainsi que deux rapporteurs anonymes pour leurs remarques et suggestions dont cet article a vivement bénéficié. lis restent, toutefois, seuls responsables d’éventuelles erreurs et insuffisances.

References

Bibliographie

Abraham-Frois, G. et Goergen, A. (1997), «Ad hocité, utilité et croissance», Revue d’Economie Politique, 107 (1).Google Scholar
Aghion, O. et Howitt, P. (1990), “A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction”, NBER Working Paper Series, n°3223.Google Scholar
Amable, B., Boyer, R. et Lordon, F. (1995), «L’ad hoc en économie: la paille et la poutre”, in Cartelier, J. et d’Autume, A. (éds), L’Economie devient-elle une science dure?, Paris, Economica.Google Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. (1994), “The Lakatossian Legacy in Economic Methodology”, in Backhouse, R. E. (éd), New Directions in Economics Metho-dology, Londres, Routledge.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. (1989), “The Growth effects of 1992”, Economic Policy, October, pp. 247–281.Google Scholar
Baumol, W. (1986), “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show”, American Economic Review, 86(5), pp. 1072–1085.Google Scholar
Bertola, G. et R. J., Caballero (1991), “Irreversibility and Aggregate Investment”, NBER Worker Papers Series, n°3865.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. (1986), Economics History and the History of Economics, New York, New York University Press.Google Scholar
Chiappari, P.-A. (1989), Commentaires sur “The Growth Effects of 1992” par Baldwin, R., Economic Policy, octobre, pp. 270–273.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W. et Lau, L. J. (1975), “Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions”, American Economic Review, 65(3), pp. 367–83.Google Scholar
Carré, J., Dubois, P. et Malinvaud, E. (1972), Croissance Française, Un essai d’analyse économique causale de l’après-guerre, Paris, Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Das, S. P. (1993), New Perspectives on Business Cycles: An Analysis of Inequality and Heterogeneity, Aldershot, GB, E. Elgar.Google Scholar
De Long, J. (1988), “Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: Comment”, American Economic review, 78(5), pp. 1138–1153.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. (1984), A Search-Equilibrium Approach to the Micro-Foundations of Macroeconomics, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (1989), “Trade and Insurance with Adverse Selection”, Review of Economic Studies, 56(2), pp. 235–47.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. et Stiglitz, J. (1977), “Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity”, American Economic Review, 67(3), pp. 297–308.Google Scholar
Garrat, A. et Hall, S. (1997), “E-equilibria and Adaptative Expectations: Output and Inflation in the LBS Model”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21(7), pp. 1149–71.Google Scholar
Hands, D. (1988), “Ad Hocness in Economics and the Popperian Tradition”, in De Marchi, (éd), The Popperian Legacy in Economics, pp. 121–137. Cambridge, GB, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hands, D. (1993), “Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology”, in Mäki, U., Gustafsson, et Knudsen, (éds), Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology, Londres et New York, Routledge, pp. 61–75.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (1998), “Problems with Realism in Economics”, Economics and Philisophy, 14, pp. 185–213.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. (1989), “The Assumption of Constant Returns to Scale”, Cambridge Journal of economics, 13, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T.W. (1981), The Politics and Philosophy of Economics, New York, New York University Press.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, D. W. (1997), Welfare, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. (1961), “Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth” in Lutz, F. et Hague, D. (éds), The Theory of Capital, Londres, Macmillan, pp. 177–222.Google Scholar
Kirman, A. P. (1992), “Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(2), pp. 117–36.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”, in Lakatos, I. et Musgrave, A., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, GB, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), Histoire et méthodologie des sciences, Paris, P.U.F., 1994.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E. (1988), “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, pp. 139–91.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E. et Sargent, T. J. (1979), “After Keynesian Macroeconomics”, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, repris in Miller, P. (éd), The Rational Expectations Revolution, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Maddison, A. (1982), Phases of Capitalist Development, New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. (1989), «On the Problems of Realism in Economics», Riserche Economiche, 43 (1–2., pp. 176–98.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, E. (1991), Voies de la recherche macroéconomique, Paris, Editions Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. et Römer, D. (1991), New Keynesian Economics, vol. 1, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mankiw, G., Römer, D. et Weil, D. (1992), “A contribution to the Empirics of Economics Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 152, pp. 407–37.Google Scholar
Mayer, T. (1993), Truth and Precision in Economics, Aldershot, GB, Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Mayo, D. G. (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. (1987), «L’instrumentalisme dans l’essai de M. Friedman», Economie et Société, n° 10, pp. 73–106.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1934), La logique de la découverte scientifique, Paris, Payot, 1973.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Londres, Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1974), Unended Quest, La Salle, Illinois, Open Court.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1983), Le réalisme et la science, Paris, Hermann, 1990.Google Scholar
Rebelo, S. (1991), “Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), pp. 500–21.Google Scholar
Rockafellar, R. (1970), Convex Analysis, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1986), “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 94, pp. 1002–37.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1990a), “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98, pp. S71–S102.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1990b), “Are Non-Convexities Important for Understanding Growth?”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 80 (2).Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1980), “A Skeptical History of Microeconomic Theory”, Theory and Decision, 12, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Rothschild, K. (1988), “Micro-Foundations, Ad Hocery and Keynesian Theory” in King, J. E. (éd) Economic Method, Theory and Policy: Selected Essays of Kurt W. Rothschild, Aldershot, GB, E. Elgar.Google Scholar
Solow, R. (1957), “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, pp. 312–20.Google Scholar
Solow, R. (1992), Siena Lectures on Endogenous Growth, Siena.Google Scholar
Solow, R. (1994), “Perspectives on Growth Theory”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. (1991), “Alternative Approaches to Macroeconomics: Methodological Issues and the New Keynesian Economics”, NBER Working Paper Series, n°3580.Google Scholar
Summers, N. et Heston, A. (1988), “A New Set of International Comparisons of Real Product and Price Levels for 130 countries, 1950–1985”, Review of Income and Wealth, 34(1), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. (1984), Science and Scepticism, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1978), “The Ways in which The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Improves on Popper’s Methodology”, in Radnitzky, G. et Andersen, G. (éds), Progress and Rationality in Science, Dordrecht, Riedel.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1985), “Scientific Discovery and Theory Confirmation” in Pitt, J. C. (éd) Change and Progress in Modern Science, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. (1976), «Why Did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s?», British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 34, pp. 243–261.Google Scholar