[knoepfle]

"Analytical solutions are considered necessary for a model to be accepted as a genuine theoretical contribution."

That's hardly true, the usual macro model is solved numerically using approximate dynamic programming.

[knoepfle]

Here we go, they contradict themselves later: "Computational general equilibrium (CGE) models provide an example of accepted computerized problem solving in economics."

[dj-wonk]

I don't see this as a contradiction. The authors probably would include simulation and computerized solvers as "computerized problem solving". Such applied techniques are certainly welcomed in the field of economics. That said, they are not usually considered a theoretical approach. So, using them in a paper won't get you published if a journal is looking for a theoretical advance.

[dj-wonk]

You are talking about the aggregate demand–aggregate supply model, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD-AS_model

Here's my take: the paper would say that solving the AD-AD model with a computational technique with specific choices for parameters would not be considered a theoretical contribution.

I think that is an accurate characterization of economics, based on my experience of what 'theoretical' means. Why? When you use a numerical technique (i.e. not a symbolic manipulation) with particular values for the parameters, few would call that theoretical work. They'll call it applied economics.

(Side note: I can't speak from experience if the AD-AS model is usually solved with dynamic programming.)

[msellout]

There's a distinction between numerical approximation and simulation. The former is a technique to solve an analytical model of the world. The latter would have an analytical model of the simulation outcomes rather than of the world directly.