The last decade has witnessed a renewed interest in econometric methodology and stimulated the articulation of many distinctive viewpoints about empirical modelling and the credibility of econometric evidence. To a non-specialist, the plethora of debates and the rapid evolution of new concepts might suggest that econometricians were in total disarray within their Ivory Tower of Babel. Certainly, an excessive interest in methodology can substitute for more constructive activities; but equally, an inadequate methodological basis can induce gross inefficiency in research. I believe our own debates arose in large measure out of the turbulence of the 1970s, but were sustained because of the extraordinary innovations in computing technology which seem bound to influence most aspects of modern societies. Specifically, the vast reduction in the price per unit of computer power allowed far greater exploration of selection methods and the robustness of results than could have been dreamt about 20 years ago. Thus, the focus shifted from the sheer difficulty of estimating the unknown parameters of theory-based models, where the arcane of one decade became the routine trivia of the next, to evaluating models and thoroughly investigating potential mismatches of theory and evidence. Naturally, different views have evolved both on the causes of model failures in the 1970s and on the credibility of the results of search procedures.

These developments occurred against a background in which economic theory itself evolved rapidly, and the technology of econometric analysis advanced by leaps and bounds.