Koppl on Method

Pete Boettke, over at coordination problem, has a post about a Lant Pritchett commentary in The Economist. Pritchett argues (somewhat vaguely, I think) that formal methods in development economics can answer questions but cannot help determine what those questions are. I'm more bemused by Pritchett's comments than anything else, but Roger Koppl posted a comment below that nicely summarizes my own views on "formal method" (read, rigorous math and metrics) in economics. So here it is without further comment.

Method helps us to reaching some answers, but not always. For example, I don't think Akerlof was thinking about equations when he came out with his lemons argument. His discussion of his basic argument contained zero math. Once he'd explained the basic idea with his used car example, *then* out came the math. In other examples, the math comes first and the intuition second. I doubt there's much of a rule here. If we're tied up in a methodological straightjacket (of Bourbaki math or anti-math or whatever) then method can prevent us from finding potential answers to our questions.