structuralism 69
economic models with a mllllmum of identifying
assumptions. Moreover, SVARs can be easily estimated,
even with commercial software and freely available rou-
tines from the Internet. In the hands of skilful research-
ers, SVARs have contributed to the understanding of
aggregate fluctuations, have clarified the importance of
different economic shocks, and have generated fruitful
debates among macro economists.
However, SVARs have also been criticized. We mention
only three criticisms. First, it has been argued that the
economic shocks recovered from an SVAR do not resem-
ble the shocks measured by other mechanisms, such as
market expectations embodied in future prices. Second,
the shocks recovered from an SVAR may reflect variables
omitted from the model. If these omitted variables cor-
relate with the included variables, the estimated eco-
nomic shocks will be biased. Third, the results of many
SVAR exercises, even simple ones, are sensitive to the
identification restrictions. Related to this criticism is the
view that many of the identification schemes are the
product of a specification search in which researchers
look for 'reasonable' answers. If an identification scheme
matches the conventional wisdom, it is called successful;
if it does not, it is called a puzzle or, even worse, a failure to be the most important feature. These elements derive
(Uhlig, 2005). Consequently, there is a danger that econ-
omists will get stuck in an a priori view of the data under
the cloak of formal statistical inference.
JESUS FERNANDEZ-VILLAVERDE AND JUAN F. RUBIO-RAMIREZ stitutive processes within an integrated world economic
See also real business cycles; time series analysis; vector
autoregressions.
Bibliography
Blanchard, O.J. and Quah, D. 1989. The dynamic effects of
aggregate demand and supply disturbances. American
Economic Review 79, 655-73.
Blanchard, O.J. and Perotti, R. 2002. An empirical
characterization of the dynamic effects of changes in
government spending and taxes on output. Quarterly
Journal of Economics 117, 1329-68.
Chari, V.v., Kehoe, P.J. and McGrattan, E.R. 2005. A critique
of structural VARs using real business cycle theory.
Working Paper No. 631, Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis.
Christiano, L.J., Eichenbaum, M. and Vigfusson, R. 2007.
Assessing structural VARs. In NBER Macroeconomics
Annual 2006, vol. 21, ed. D. Acemoglu, K. Rogoff and
M. Woodford. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Fernandez-Villaverde, J., Rubio-Ramirez, J.E and Sargent,
n. 2005. A,B,C's (and D's) for understanding VARs.
Technical Working Paper No. 308. Cambridge, MA:
NBER.
Gall, J. 1999. Technology, employment, and the business
cycle: do technology shocks explain aggregate
fluctuations? American Economic Review 89, 249-7l.
Sims, CA. 1980. Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica
48, 1-48.
S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2008
Sims, CA. and Zha, T. 2006a. Does monetary policy
generate recessions? Macroeconomic Dynamics 10,
231-72.
Sims, CA. and Zha, T. 2006b. Were there regime switches in
U.S. monetary policy? American Economic Review 96,
54-8l.
Uhlig, H. 2005. What are the effects of monetary policy on
output? Results from an agnostic identification
procedure. Journal of Monetary Economics 52, 381-419.
Waggoner, D.E and Zha, T. 2003. Likelihood preserving
normalization in multiple equation models. Journal of
Econometrics 114, 329-47.
structuralism
Structuralism is essentially a theoretical approach that
challenges the methods of empiricism and positivism.
Structuralism features in several disciplines across the
humanities and the social sciences, but not as a cohesive
school of thought. In so far as there are common ele-
ments, the conception of an integrated system of distin-
guishable yet mutually constitutive elements could be said
their meaning in relation to one another - such as, for
instance in economics, the understanding of develop-
ment and underdevelopment as related, mutually con-
system. This is as distinct from the analysis of the
elements as relatively independent units.
The emergence of structuralism is typically traced to
the linguistic work of De Saussure, who analysed lan-
guage as a system whose elements can be defined only
through their relations of equivalence or opposition to
one another, with these relations forming the structure.
The term 'structuralism' was apparently coined by Jakob-
son, a member of the Prague School of linguistics, in
1929. Structuralism is also strongly associated with the
work of Levi-Strauss in anthropology, notably in his
analysis of the structures within cultures through which
meanings are produced and reproduced. Other writers
often associated with structuralism include Althusser,
Barthes, Derrida, Godelier, and Lacan (although not
all identified themselves as structuralist nor would be
universally regarded as such).
Structuralism can be considered as having methodo-
logical, epistemological, and ontological dimensions.
However, in different disciplines and for different writ-
ers variously identified as 'structuralist', not all these
dimensions necessarily feature.
As a methodology, structuralist analysis advocates a
focus on a system in its totality and on the interrelations
between its elements, rather than on individual elements
in isolation. For instance, in terms of economic analysis,
this might point towards an emphasis on understanding
the world economy as a unified system, with the
economic dynamics of its constituent parts - centre
70 structuralism
and periphery - being defined in terms of their
interrelationship. Such a methodological approach relates
closely to the seminal focus in structuralist linguistics on
synchronic rather than diachronic analysis (that is, an
emphasis on a comprehensive analysis of a linguistic
structure at a given conjuncture, even at the expense of
historical or comparative approaches). Structuralism can
be distinguished in this respect from historicist analysis.
It would also tend to offer non-narrative explanations (in
terms of an emphasis on analysis of the underlying
dynamics rather than on descriptive explanations).
In terms of epistemology, structuralism requires the
penetration of appearance in order to grasp the deep
underlying structure. In this sense, structuralism is
anti-phenomenological and may also be considered
anti-empiricist. From this perspective, structuralist
approaches in economics hold that there is a set of eco-
nomic and social structures that are themselves unob-
servable, yet generate observable social and economic
phenomena. The latter could not be properly under-
stood unless the analysis focuses on the unobservable
underlying structures.
In terms of ontology, structuralism tends to favour
explanations as to how structures cause or at least
condition or asymmetrically constitute aspects such as
agency. This ontological approach is particularly relevant
to structuralist political theory and structuralist Marxism
(notably in Althusser), and stands in opposition to
humanist and historicist interpretations of Marxism.
There are two .dimensions here: structure and agency.
Notwithstanding important differences between struc-
turalist approaches, a shared characteristic is the onto-
logical primacy accorded to structure over an event or a
phenomenon. Agents are regarded as often unaware of
the economic structure, or the totality of the social rela-
tions of production, so that there is a gap between their
discourse and the collective social practice that consti-
tutes the objective economic structure. This is expressed
in Althusser's theory of social practice as a process of
transformation without a subject: by transforming the
social and natural environment through work, people
determine the economic structure, but not as subjects,
through their agency, but through internalized social
organization and practice. Hence, structuralism seeks
to explain social phenomena by reference to the under-
lying structure of the mode of production and the
social organization - or practice - that determines it.
This approach can be distinguished from humanist
approaches that privilege agency, stressing the role of
human consciousness and action in social change.
In modem economics, structuralism is mostly associ-
ated with the United Nations Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), whose work
merged into a coherent school of thought in the late
1950s. However, at least some of the core elements of
ECLAC thought can be traced to earlier Continental
European contributions, in particular to the 'structuralist'
economic school in France. The earliest use of the
modem concept of economic structure - after Marx - can
be found in the work of Wagemann, who introduced
the notion of structure in his business cycle studies. For
Wagemann, certain types of business cycles correspond to
specific underlying economic structures. A system is
determined by all the particularities of a country and its
people, or by the totality of the data. In a similar
vain, .Ackerman developed a 'structuralist' view of the
economy in relation to the study of business cycles. From
a dynamic point of view, .Ackerman defines economic
structures as those structures that are invariable in the
short term.
Wagemann's and .Ackerman's work was well known to
Perroux, who is probably the best-known representative
of French economic structuralism (and who was the
main intellectual influence in Furtado's early work,
including his doctoral dissertation at the Sorbo nne; see
Furtado, 1995). Perroux (1939) defined structural eco-
nomics as the science of the relations characteristic of an
economic system (ensemble) situated in time and space.
Central to Perroux's approach was the view that, over and
above the 'givens' of neoclassical theory (preferences,
resources and technology), the analysis of institutions
and structures over time had to be at the heart of eco-
nomic analysis. An important innovative contribution by
Perroux concerns his theory of domination that is central
to ECLAC's conception of economic systems: rather than
being constituted by relationships between equal agents,
the economic world is conceptualized in terms of hidden
or explicit relationships of 'force', 'power' and 'con-
straints' between dominant and dominated entities.
Perroux applies the theory of domination to different
levels of analysis, first, to markets (such as the effects of
the level of unemployment on relations of dominance in
the labour market), next to the theory of firms, especially
regarding imperfect competition, and finally to the inter-
national economy, in terms of the relationship between
'dominant' and 'dominated' economies, particularly
concerning trade and finance.
French economic 'structuralism' clearly anticipates
important aspects of ECLAC thought. This is not
surprising, given the close personal links between the
main protagonists on both sides. In addition to the
Perroux-Furtado relationship, Wagemann immigrated to
Chile where he worked with leading ECLAC economists
and promoted the ideas of Sombart who, apart from
Perroux, was also an important influence on Prebisch
and Furtado.
ECLAC first explicitly termed its own analysis 'struc-
turalist' in the mid-1950s in its controversies with the
monetarist view of inflation (see Noyola, 1957; Pinto,
1963; and Sunkel et al., 1963; see also Kaldor, 1957). In
brief, the ECLAC argument was that money was endog-
enous in Latin America's persistent inflation, which was
seen as a cost-push phenomenon that mainly originated
in the supply rigidities of the agricultural sector (an idea