Second contribution to the ENE critique: Reply to Davidson, part 1
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, vol. 39, issue 1, 17-43
On first encounter, the ergodic/nonergodic (ENE) approach has apparent plausibility. Although concerned by some of its problems for many years, it was only after more concentrated reflection on both its parts and their combinations that I became aware of its manifold deficiencies, some of which I outlined in my previous critique (O’Donnell, 2014). In this paper, facilitated by Davidson’s (2015b) rejoinder, these criticisms are deepened, broadened, and strengthened. Because the debate deals with fundamental matters in several disciplines, a considerable amount of investigation, unpacking, and logical dissection is required to clarify the argumentation beneath the compressed and seemingly smooth surface of the ENE position. For this reason, my reply is divided into two parts. This contribution primarily examines the central role of framing in ENE arguments, and clarifies the various misunderstandings and misrepresentations to which it leads. The subsequent contribution provides more detailed discussion of mathematical, stochastic, and methodological issues.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mes:postke:v:39:y:2016:i:1:p:17-43
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().