The readers of sci.econ have surely become familiar with Robert
Vienneau's frequent attacks on mainstream economics and and researchers 
who do work in this area.  He has commonly suggested that such researchers,
given the failings he suggests are pervasive in their approach, are 
motivated only by ideology.  However, Vienneau's theoretical critiques 
have been repeatedly been exposed for their errors, and even when not 
internally flawed represent not contradictions to the methodologies of 
mainstream economics but instead alternative approaches, weak ones at 
that.  How so?  Well, do they have anything to do with the real world?  
When asked to present empirical evidence to support his preferred models, 
Mr. Vienneau tends to reply in ways that can only be described as a bit 
strange to those who are familiar with empirical work.  

	In a recent post, Mr. Vienneau claimed to have come up with 
a list of "some applied and empirical references" which would support
his models.  I happened to spend a little time this afternoon following 
these references up and it has become clear that not only do none of
these papers provide any serious empirical support for the importance 
or even the existence of reswitching but also that Robert Vienneau
couldn't tell an empirical paper from _The Daily Worker_.

	Consider:

>> But I'll confine myself in this post to one Witte fantasy:
>>
>>>> At one point, I gave some indication of where to find
>>>> empirical evidence. Among Mark Witte's erroneous comments, he
>>>> suggested that empirical evidence on this issue is by 
>>>> definition of bad quality and that good journals should not 
>>>> include it. So if he doesn't think the question worth 
>>>> discussing, why does he bring it up?
 
>>>       Had Mr. Vienneau been anything other than vague, perhaps
>>> intentionally so, in his previous reply, I would have pursued
>>> his long awaited empirical references eagerly.

>> Actually, I was quite specific about the following reference,
>> which Mark Witte ignored:

>     When Mr. Vienneau begins to discuss empirical issues, things
> can get very strange.  Watch carefully.

>>   Peter Albin, "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation," _Kylos_,
>>   1975,  Number 1, 28, pp. 149-54.

	This paper has the word "empirical" in the title, but that's about it.
He presents a little model of how reswitching might occur in the lumber
industry in the choice of tractors and horses where environmental repair is
a concern.  Then he gets to the section entitled "Empirical Notes."  
I quote:  "A check with the officers at a major lumbering company produced
evidence in support of the interpretations given here...."  That's basically
it, no numbers, no statisical tests, just a discussion of the relative 
merits of using bulldozers verses "(shades of Montgolfier)...balloons."

	With empirical support like this, no wonder Mr. Vienneau is such
a firm believer.

[By the way, for an avid 'net spell checker like Mr. Vienneau, it should
be noted that the title of the journal is _Kyklos_.]

>> Furthermore I suggested that we need to learn Italian (based on
>> this quote which I did not bothering giving):
>> 
>>   "...since I have gathered that the most active discussion,
>>   both theoretical and empirical, on how probable the occurrence
>>   of reswitching is, has recently been taking place in the
>>   Italian language journals - one estimate puts the number of
>>   such papers in recent years to around seventy! I did
>>   not have access to any of them."
>>     -- Syed Ahmad, _Capital in Economic Theory: Neo-classical,
>>     Cambridge and Chaos_, Edward Elgar, 1991, p. 250
>> 
>> I wrote:
>> 
>>RV>   Supposedly over 50 articles in Italian journals over the 
>>RV> last ten years.
>> 
>> This provoked this non-serious and bigoted reply:
>> 
>>MW>  My Italian economist friends assure me that much quality
>>MW> work goes on in economics journals but that the[y] can't
>>MW> state with assurance that the work Mr. Vienneau cites does
>>MW> not also get in somewhere.

>     Whew, thanks for catching that typo.  At last my true
> meaning can be interpreted.  So these blockbuster empirical
> articles are in Italian and Mr. Vienneau admits that he has not
> read them.  So the real world evidence that they may contain is
> clearly not what brought Mr. Vienneau to follow their paradigm.  
> So what did bring him to their camp?  Maybe ideology?

>> I can now produce some applied and empirical references in

	Right, applied and empirical references.  Let's go.

>> English based on:
>> 
>>   "...This possibility has been used by Hartwick (1976),
>>   Schweizer and Varaiya (1977), Scott (1979), and Barnes and
>>   Sheppard (1984) to argue for the possibility of "reswitching"
>>   of land uses occurring across space, that is of one use
>>   appearing for one zone, disappearing for another, and then
>>   reappearing at a further out location. Such reswitching could
>>   arise if transportation costs are wage-intensive. In such a
>>   case the rent-distance profile will be discontinuous at the
>>   switch points. If the intermediate land use is agricultural,
>>   then there will be a discontinuous pattern of development from
>>   the urban perspective."
>>    -- J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., _From Catastrophe to Chaos: A
>>    General Theory of Economic Discontinuities_, Kluwer Academic,
>>    1991, p. 190

>     Ah, so in 1991, Mr. Vienneau was reading this Rosser book,
> came across this passage, slapped himself across his forehead and
> exclaimed, "Gad Zooks!  Mainstream economics is crap!"

>> Barkley Rosser is referring to
>> 
>>   John Hartwick, "Intermediate Goods and the Spatial Integration
>>   of Land Use," _Regional Science and Urban Economics_, V. 6,
>>   pp. 127-145, 1976.

	This article contains a story about 19th century US and 
European population densities and land use, but no real empirical 
work.  It's basically a von Thunen type model with land used in
the usual place of capital in reswitching models.

>>   U. Schweizer and P. Varaiya, "The Spatial Structure of
>>   Production with a Leontief Technology-II: Substitute
>>   Techniques," Regional Science and _Urban Economics_, V. 7, 
>>   pp. 293-320, 1977.

	Zero empirical content. 

>>   A. J. Scott, "Commodity Production and the Dynamics of
>>   Land-Use Differentiation," _Urban Studies_, V. 16, pp. 95-104,
>>   1979.

	Zero empirical content.

>>   Trevor Barnes and Eric Sheppard, "Technical Choice and
>>   Reswitching in Space Economies," _Regional Science and Urban
>>   Economics_, V. 14, pp. 345-352, 1984.

	Zero empirical content.  And like the rest, basically a von Thunen 
model with land instead of capital.

>> Elsewhere in the same book, Barkley Rosser references:
>> 
>>   Geir B. Asheim, "The Occurrence of Paradoxical Behavior in a
>>   Model where Economic Activity has Environmental Effects,"
>>   Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
>>   Discussion Papers, 1980.

>     Whoa, a 16 year old unpublished discussion paper!  Well,
> that's the last time I ever accept something from the mainstream!

>>   Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Environment Costs
>>   and Reswitching Between Food and Energy Production in the
>>   Western United States," mimeo, James Madison University, 1984.

>     An unpublished mimeo!  And from only 12 years ago!  Well,
> could there be any stronger evidence?

>>   Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Some Implications
>>   of Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A
>>   Study of Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands, _Growth and
>>   Change_, V. 16, 18-25, 1985.

	Whew, this weak piece is basically just a replay of Samuelson's
present value model of reswitching of labor without capital.  And again,
zero empirical content.

>> So now we know that there's support by applied economists for
>> reswitching, can we count on Mark Witte to discard neoclassical
>> economics?

	So now we know that there's zero emprical support even where
Mr. Vienneau claims there is, should be send him an autographed copy 
of _Capitalism and Freedom_?