Can feminist thought make economics more objective?

Feminist research is often perceived to be less objective than conventional research on the grounds that the latter is value-neutral and the former is not. This essay shows that a major problem with the familiar standards for maximizing objectivity that permit such a conclusion is that they are too weak. They have no resources for detecting widespread cultural assumptions, values and interests, such as the androcentric ones to which feminist work draws attention. Good method works by identifying cultural values that differ between researchers or research communities. However, since androcentric values are often culture-wide, something more rigorous than only conventional good methods evidently are needed for researchers to be able to identify them.Thus feminist research does not introduce political assumptions, values and interests into research fields that are otherwise value-neutral; it identifies the ones that are already there. Rejecting the debilitating relativist stance usually seen as the only alternative to conventional standards for maximizing objectivity, feminist thought increases the objectivity of research. This essay reviews recent arguments in both conventional and feminist philosophy and history that support this analysis, and shows how it leads to the construction of stronger standards of objectivity than the conventional only “weak objectivity” that is dependent upon the neutrality ideal. Paradoxical though it may appear, “strong objectivity” requires the kind of conscientious socially situated production of knowledge characteristic of feminist work in economics.     

Does trend inflation make a difference?

Although the average inflation rate of developed countries in the postwar period has been greater than zero, much of the extensive literature on monetary policy has employed models that assume zero steady-state inflation. In comparing four estimated medium–scale NK DSGE models with real and nominal frictions, we seek to shed light on the quantitative implications of omitting trend inflation, that is, positive steady–state inflation. We compare certain population characteristics and the IRFs for the four models by applying two loss functions based on a point distance criterion and on a distribution distance criterion, respectively. Finally, we compare the RMSE forecasts and we consider also an indirect inference test. We repeat the analysis for three sub-periods: the Great Inflation, the Great Moderation and the union of the two periods. We do not find strong evidence that a model with trend inflation should always be preferred. During periods of high inflation or when a backward-looking component, indexed to past inflation, is not incorporated in the model, using a model that employs trend inflation can improve the analysis. Nevertheless, where there is uncertainty concerning the change of an inflation regime, such as the recent drop, we suggest adopting a traditional approach that does not use trend inflation.