Teoria makroekonomiko berria?

Oxford Econ Policy‏ @OxrepJournal

Rebuilding Macroeconomic Theory, our brand new issue, is NOW LIVE. Follow us, share and engage with the bold and varied arguments made, and get your FREE download here until 7 Feb: http://bit.ly/macroeconomictheory …

2018 urt. 4


Rebuilding macroeconomic theory


David Vines Samuel Wills

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 34, Issue 1-2, 5 January 2018, Pages 1–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx062


In this paper we review the Rebuilding Macroeconomic Theory Project, in which we asked a number of leading macroeconomists to describe how the benchmark New Keynesian model might be rebuilt, in the wake of the 2008 crisis. The need to change macroeconomic theory is similar to the situation in the 1930s, at the time of the Great Depression, and in the 1970s, when inflationary pressures were unsustainable. Four main changes to the core model are recommended: to emphasize financial frictions, to place a limit on the operation of rational expectations, to include heterogeneous agents, and to devise more appropriate microfoundations. Achieving these objectives requires changes to all of the behavioural equations in the model governing consumption, investment, and price setting, and also the insertion of a wedge between the interest rate set by policy-makers and that facing consumers and investors. In our view, the result will not be a paradigm shift, but an evolution towards a more pluralist discipline.

Where modern macroeconomics went wrong

Joseph E Stiglitz



This paper provides a critique of the DSGE models that have come to dominate macroeconomics during the past quarter-century. It argues that at the heart of the failure were the wrong microfoundations, which failed to incorporate key aspects of economic behaviour, e.g. incorporating insights from information economics and behavioural economics. Inadequate modelling of the financial sector meant they were ill-suited for predicting or responding to a financial crisis; and a reliance on representative agent models meant they were ill-suited for analysing either the role of distribution in fluctuations and crises or the consequences of fluctuations on inequality. The paper proposes alternative benchmark models that may be more useful both in understanding deep downturns and responding to them.

Good enough for government work? Macroeconomics since the crisis

Paul Krugman



This paper argues that when the financial crisis came policy-makers relied on some version of the Hicksian sticky-price IS-LM as their default model; these models were ‘good enough for government work’. While there have been many incremental changes suggested to the DSGE model, there has been no single ‘big new idea’ because the even simpler IS-LM type models were what worked well. In particular, the policy responses based on IS-LM were appropriate. Specifically, these models generated the insights that large budget deficits would not drive up interest rates and, while the economy remained at the zero lower bound, that very large increases in monetary base wouldn’t be inflationary, and that the multiplier on government spending was greater than 1. The one big exception to this satisfactory understanding was in price behaviour. A large output gap was expected to lead to a large fall in inflation, but did not. If new research is necessary, it is on pricing behaviour. While there was a failure to forecast the crisis, it did not come down to a lack of understanding of possible mechanisms, or of a lack of data, but rather through a lack of attention to the right data.

Mosler comes to the rescue

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler urt. 5

Replying to @OxrepJournal

Don’t forget to include the currency itself as a public monopoly driven by coercive taxation, etc… 😉


Iruzkinak (1)

  • joseba

    Zer dela eta ekonomia oso garrantzitsua den ekonomialari (akademiko)-en esku uzteko
    Why economics is too important to be left to the (academic) economists

    Modern Economics is as conformist, and bland, as country and western music. This leaves radical thinkers singing the Blues as their voices go unheard.
    Establishment Only
    My instant response, on seeing this Table of Contents, was that there was “Nobody from outside the mainstream here.” There was no Stephanie Kelton from the Modern Monetary Theory school and no Complex Systems economist (such as myself).
    • The “Modern Monetary Theory” approach, which starts from understanding the accounting rules that allow both the government and private banks to create money, and argues that the government should normally spend more than it taxes, since this creates fiat-based money that is needed if the private sector wants to save money;
    … but I’m giving up singing it in the Country and Western dives that modern university economics departments have become. There’s just no point in trying to persuade them that other forms of economic music exist, let alone should be developed into the new paradigm that economics desperately needs. (…)

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude