Hansen, L. P. (Feb.

11, 2019), "Purely evidence-based policy doesn’t exist”

Hansen comienza mostrando su escepticismo acerca de las políticas basadas en la evidencia

empírica, dado que este considera que la evidencia por si misma no muestra resultados de
qué tan bien esta formulada la política en cuestión.

Este argumenta que para que la evidencia sea relevante, debe ser analizada a través de un
modelo que permita tener un marco conceptual, sobre el cual buscar mitigar la subjetividad
del autor al analizar los datos. Teniendo en cuenta, que Hansen considera que un modelo es
una simplificación de la realidad, estos tienen ciertas limitaciones para explicar los datos
que se utilizan. Por lo tanto, es de vital importancia tener en cuenta que modelo es el
apropiado para analizar los datos y entender cuales son las limitaciones del modelo. Con el
fin, de tener en cuenta estas limitaciones y no llegar a sobrestimar el alcance de los
modelos.

Hansen recalca que hay ciencias como la física y química, existe la posibilidad de realizar
experimentos de manera controlada. Con el fin, de poder a prueba sus teorías y modelos. En
economía esto no es posible, dado que el laboratorio es la misma sociedad. Donde los
costos de experimentar son mucho más altos. Por otro lado, subraya que muchas veces
existe una experimentación sin intención, llevando a tener una idea más concreta del
alcance y veracidad de los modelos que se aplican.

CITAS IMPORTANTES:

⁃ While we want to embrace evidence, the evidence seldom speaks for itself;
typically, it requires a modeling or conceptual framework for interpretation
⁃ Modeling is used not only to aid our basic understanding of phenomena, but also to
capture how we view any implied trade-offs for social well-being
⁃ The disagreement stems from the fact that people are using different models or
conceptual frameworks, each with its own policy implications
⁃ Of course, the generation and construction of new data adds much richness to
economic analyses. For many important economic questions, however, empiricism
by itself is of limited value
⁃ The evidence alone does not answer the question they are addressing, and they’re
using different subjective inputs to help in extrapolating from the evidence
⁃ More agreement between models might make for less arguing among politicians
and the people who advise them, but it wouldn’t necessarily make economics more
useful as a science
⁃ A modeling challenge that I and others have confronted is how to incorporate,
meaningfully acknowledge, and capture the limits to our understanding—and what
implications these limits have for markets and economic outcomes
⁃ While experimental evidence of various guises is available, unlike many of our
colleagues in the physical and biological sciences, macroeconomists are limited in
terms of the types of experiments we can run
⁃ The evidence, economic data, tells us to some degree what happened in the
economy as a result of a set of conditions; models are what allow us to compare
 what happened with what would have happened under a different set of conditions,
including, of course, different policies
⁃ The choice of model is a vital input into the analysis and can have a big impact on
the policy implications
⁃ A model is a simplification, an abstraction; it’s not meant to be a full describer of
reality
⁃ It is naive to criticize models for not being fully descriptive, but at the same time it
is important that we use them with our eyes open to their potential limitations
⁃ Many of the people who influence, or want to influence, public policy are reluctant
to acknowledge that we’re often working with incomplete information
⁃ The uncertainty doesn’t mean that you simply cross your arms, close your eyes, and
do nothing while you wait for complete certainty. In economics, you will be waiting
a long time