Facts and Artifacts: Calibration and the Empirical Assessment of Real-Business-Cycle Models

Kevin Hoover ()

Oxford Economic Papers, 1995, vol. 47, issue 1, 24-44

Abstract: Advocates of real-business-cycle models typically hold calibration methods to be superior to econometric estimation as means of quantifying the models for policy analysis. This paper finds a coherent foundation for calibration methods in Herbert Simon's Sciences of the Artificial and the methodology of idealization in the philosophy of science. Although coherent, these foundations are not fundamentally connected real-business-cycle models per se. Furthermore, adequate comparative standards have not yet been developed for calibrated models. Copyright 1995 by Royal Economic Society.

Date: 1995
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (34)

Downloads: (external link)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-7653%2819950 ... 0.CO%3B2-5&origin=bc full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:47:y:1995:i:1:p:24-44

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Economic Papers is currently edited by James Forder and Francis J. Teal

More articles in Oxford Economic Papers from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().