Everyone is having a grand-ole time cheering about the "new" empirical wave of economics. Write-ups about the recent Nobel winner, Angus Deaton, have talked all about his influence on data analysis:
His method of careful analysis of data from household surveys has transformed four large swaths of the dismal science: microeconomics, econometrics, macroeconomics and development economics.
He has brought microeconomics — traditionally a field populated by theorists — into closer connection with the data. Partly because of his influence, modern microeconomists are more likely to spend their days knee-deep in large-scale data sets describing the real-world decisions made by millions of people, and less likely to be mired in Greek-letter abstractions.
Much of the empirical revolution in economics has been enabled by the tools that Mr. Deaton developed. These tools reimagine the role of economic theory, using it to organize and interpret the tidal wave of data coming from the hundreds of household surveys conducted around the world each year.
(E)ssentially changing this prize from “Best Economist Under 40” to “Best Applied Microeconomist Under 40”. Of the past seven winners, the only one who isn’t obviously an applied microeconomist is Levin, and yet even he describes himself as “an applied economist with interests in industrial organization, market design and the economics of technology.”
I get it. Increased data and computational power have allowed us to do things we couldn't do 10 years ago. It has exploded. Plus, for the blogosphere, the data turns into pretty pictures that we can all uuuhhh and aaawww at. FiveThirtyEight and others have made a whole industry out of this.
It's great. I love it.
But theory is ultimately the force that drives our understanding of the world. As Hayek wrote, the abstract is primary. That's why I love seeing Rakesh Vohra come to the defense of theory. I know; shocking that a theorist would defend theory... It's short, snarky, and spot on, as blog posts should be. (And hard to excerpt it so read it.)
If you'll indulge me and let another theorist try to defend the first theorist, using theory... I'll use a theory to try to think through the marginal benefits of theory and empirical work. I think Supply and Demand is a pretty useful theory for thinking through things... But I might be biased.
Let me try my best at making pretty pictures. (If FiveThirtyEight wants me to start designing charts for them, I'm available. Call me.)
Suppose because of a technology "shock" the marginal cost of empirical work declines. This causes a shift to the right of the supply curve of empirical work, lowering the marginal value of empirical work.
This LOWERS the marginal value of empirical work. The next regression gives less value than before the technology shock.
If you believe, like I do, that empirical work and theoretical work are complements, then this should cause a shift of the marginal benefit of theoretical work. I don't think that markets adjust instantaneously, so there might be lag for the theory market to adjust to the change in the empirical market.
The marginal value of theory is now HIGHER, because of the "data" revolution. If today is between the shock and the final adjustment of theoretical work, the marginal value of the theory will continue to grow.
So I'll get back to my theory work...