by From Asad Zaman Mäki, Uskali. “Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: refining Rodrik.” Journal of Economic Methodology 25.3 (2018): 218-236. Introduction: I must confess to having admired Dani Rodrik. His research was iconoclastic, fearlessly going after many sacred cows of economics. So, I was saddened and disappointed by his defense of Economics: Rodrik, Dani (2015) Economics Rules. Why Economics Works, When It Fails, and How to Tell the Difference. Oxford UP. Rodrik uses “rules” in a dual sense; a set of rules to discriminate between good and bad economics, as well as an assertion of the superiority of economics. This post is a fairly longish 2100 word summary of the first half of Mäki’s trenchant critique the book, linked above. If I find the time and energy, I might do the
Topics:
Asad Zaman considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
Stavros Mavroudeas writes CfP of Marxist Macroeconomic Modelling workgroup – 18th WAPE Forum, Istanbul August 6-8, 2025
Lars Pålsson Syll writes The pretence-of-knowledge syndrome
Dean Baker writes Crypto and Donald Trump’s strategic baseball card reserve
Lars Pålsson Syll writes How economists forgot the real world
from Asad Zaman
Mäki, Uskali. “Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: refining Rodrik.” Journal of Economic Methodology 25.3 (2018): 218-236.
Introduction: I must confess to having admired Dani Rodrik. His research was iconoclastic, fearlessly going after many sacred cows of economics. So, I was saddened and disappointed by his defense of Economics: Rodrik, Dani (2015) Economics Rules. Why Economics Works, When It Fails, and How to Tell the Difference. Oxford UP. Rodrik uses “rules” in a dual sense; a set of rules to discriminate between good and bad economics, as well as an assertion of the superiority of economics. This post is a fairly longish 2100 word summary of the first half of Mäki’s trenchant critique the book, linked above. If I find the time and energy, I might do the second half later. However, this should suffice to save the reader the pain of reading Rodrik’s incoherent and conflicted defense of the indefensible. In my post title, I also use rules in two senses — as a verdict, and as a judgment of Mäki’s sophistication relative to Rodrik’s naivete.
Uskali Mäki is truly a gentleman and a scholar – his devastating put-down of Rodrik reads like a loving uncle gently correcting an errant child. There are powerful arguments, but no sound-bites. This post provides a summary of Mäki’s critique. read more