Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal piece on Oct. 9, in which he comments on some of Laurence Meyer's thoughts, was less of a screed against macroeconomic theory than one would have expected. As Krugman acknowledges, "Keynesian" ideas (which he seems to refer to loosely) can be and have been fruitfully incorporated into "new-classical-based" macroeconomic models for the past two decades. And speaking to some of Meyer's apparent views, large-scale "macroeconometric models" are back at policy institutions such as the Board. They have been under construction for at least several years -- i.e., dating to before the events of the past couple of years.
But these newest "macroeconometric models" (which sit side-by-side with the older generations of macroeconometric models) take as a starting point exactly the neoclassical theory that both seem to dismiss. Which seems to be an inevitable point for the profession to have evolved to over the past few decades. Both seem to miss the point that the "old" macroeconometric models failed spectacularly during the last large recessions of the mid- and late-1970's, a time when the academic and policy communities had also seemingly converged on a consensus, "engineering"-based foundation of macro. The events then paved the way for the more "science"-based foundation of macro that has developed since. A "consensus" amongst the academic and policy communities once again emerged --- King and Goodfriend in the mid-1990's dubbed this the "new neoclassical synthesis" --- at least as regards methodology, which is surely neoclassically-based.
Surprise, surprise, these models and ideas also proved to be incomplete and missed many important things.
If the point of commentaries such as these by Krugman and Meyer (and many others) is to point out that "modern macroeconomics" didn't have everything figured out, or even anywhere close to figured out --- sure. Agreed.
But neither did the old Keynesian macroeconometric models, as the events of the 1970's proved. But, clearly, we should go back to those models now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
__________________________
ReplyDeleteWatch the Video: Vote for You Economy Now - Essay in Persuasion
Add Jobs, Revenues & Investments.
Prosperous, Fair, Stable & Peaceful.
Describes the Advantages and the Process of the Election for an Additional Economy.
The Video is Blocked in Certain Countries:
Email me to signal if it is blocked in yours.
I will try a work around.
__________________________
But then where do we stand? in the middle of nowhere? Does all this macroeconomics boil down merely to a circus of economists with their fancy models? I still remember an observation of Dani Rodrick that why economists have failed is because the evolution of economic models has been cyclic where new models are developing by challenging the underlying dynamics of old models ultimately leading into a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteDespite evolving economic theory we continue to see black swans, recessions. We claim that recessions increase our understanding to combat future but we still continue to witness economic and market failures at increasing frequency.