Before I blow this popsicle stand, let me send you in the direction of the Journal of Mathematical Sociology just to depress the hell out of you. Actually what is considered by many to be one of the most important papers in economic complexity theory first appeared there in its first volume. That is Thomas C. Schelling, "Dynamic Models of Segregation," Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1971, vol. 1, pp. 143-186.
Basically it is how a little bit of prejudice, locally applied, can lead to a whole lot of segregation, globally experienced. The little bit of segregation is the shoe that got lost....
Standard econ math (and econometrics) is quite a bit more these days than just multiple regression, which will not get one published in a leading journal generally these days. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 1:40 PM Subject: Re: kids v. economists
> Suresh Naidu wrote:
>
>>A real shame because my own reading on the subject has made me horribly
>>interested in the work conducted at the above institutions, and there is
>>so much cool stuff waiting to be expanded on. Ideology, class,
>>exploitation, all need to be thrown back into the economics debate(Like
>>the stuff John Roemer did).
>
>
>Sociology already does an *excellent* job of dealing with these
>topics. This is why Krugman sez that bad economists will be condemned to
>be sociologists in their next life: it is not because sociology is
>punishment because it's not as physics-like, mathematical, parsimonious,
>and reductionism, like econ, it is because what we do and deal with is SO
>much more difficult! so there! :) i have similarly nasty things to say
>about cultstuds attempts to colonize my discipline as well! (hi Cat! heh)
>
>I am not familiar with the modeling done in econ -- is it the nasty old
>regression model? I'm somewhat familiar with the "new institutionalism"
>but find that it misses the mark. curious if any of you want to jump in
>and keep me the low-down, just because I'm curious. I've written about the
>problems with attempts to rely on statistical reasoning in sociology:
>Variable analysis rests on a methodology that conceives of society in terms
>of causal relationships (non-spurious correlations) between operationalized
>systems of variables. In contrast, advocates of qualitative methods and
>mathematical sociology argue that the goal of sociology is to study social
>interactions between people and the various levels of social organization
>within which they interact. Variable analysis, they complain, can only
>tell about individuals and their sociologically defined attributes, and
>nothing about the social relationships that constitute society. (Carchedi;
>Singer and Marini; Farraro)
>
>Thus, the terms quantitative and qualitative signify two distinct ways of
>conceiving of social life. The rejection of variable analysis requires
>that one agree that sociology ought to be concerned with describing society
>in terms of social relations, and that individuals are individuals
>precisely because of their relationships with other individuals within the
>context of groups, institutions, systems and discourses. In contrast,
>variable analysis and the protocols of statistical modeling assume a
>population of individuals who, in fact, are independent of one
>another. Thus, statistical analysis constructs a certain kind of
>individual within sociological discourse -- the member of an aggregate.
>(Morrow). For this reason, Farraro, a formalist methodologist, makes a
>sharp distinction between statistical modeling (the "regression equation
>model") and the construction of models of generative social
>structures. Regression equation models "are not social theoretical in
>character....They are...statistical theoretical models applying general
>statistical theory".
>
>Understood in this way, I advocate a pragmatic approach to methods, but not
>methodology. Research methods, in a sense, are like tools and each is
>appropriate for asking certain questions about social life. However, it
>would be a mistake to view methods as "atheoretical" tools. Methods, like
>theoretical frameworks, focus, clarify, define, and -- ultimately -- shape
>the research process. Tools, then, ought to be chosen according to the
>larger purposes of a theoretical research project. Hence, it is important
>to understand how methods are related to a larger methodological and
>theoretical framework -- the logic of research and the connection between
>empirical data and the construction of theories about social life. A
>research logic involves a choice of methods, but that choice is constrained
>by a substantive and theoretical focus. Research methods are tools but
>they must be understood as tools that are defined in terms of a theoretical
>orientation and research design.
>
>[1] Singer and Marini argue that "the focus on explained variance has had a
>major effect on the choice of problems to study within sociology....Many,
>if not most, fundamental sociological questions, however, involve macro
>level, structural forces in which there is little or no variation. These
>problems cannot be addressed through this type of analysis." And Farraro
>who is a staunch advocate of formal, positivist theory, rejects much
>variable analysis and argues for the development of generative
>structuralist models that will contribute to the development of formalized
>general sociological theory. Wilson's defense of mathematical sociology
>rests on a concern with the inadequacy of variable modeling: "Mathematics
>cannot play the same role as a vehicle for expressing fundamental concepts
>and propositions in the social sciences as it does in the natural
>sciences. The reason for this is that the basic data of social sciences,
>descriptions of social phenomena, are inherently intensional in
>character: the social sciences cannot insist on extensional description
>without abandoning their phenomena; rather, that mathematics play a
>heuristic rather than a fundamental role in the study of social phenomena"
>
>