ABSTRACT
Economics over-invests in orthodox rational choice models. The problem with these models are not that they are idealized but that they lack empirical success, and when empirical success is achieved their contribution to it is typically only heuristic. As a result, many of the alleged benefits of orthodox models do not hold up: they do not explain, they do not provide understanding in terms of agent rational choices, and they do not generalize across cases. Their presumed advantage over heterodox models and methods melts away. A pressing issue then becomes the discipline-wide balance of work across different methods. The recent empirical turn in economics is an example of re-balancing, and is to be welcomed.
