DOCSLIB.ORG

Barro and Grossman's Dynamic Disequilibrium Macroeconomics1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barro and Grossman's Dynamic Disequilibrium Macroeconomics1 Barro and Grossman’s Dynamic Disequilibrium Macroeconomics1 Abstract During the 1970s, most macroeconomists developed “fixed-price” equilibrium models. Such models featured equilibria with rationing on markets. Not the dynamic of non-clearing markets. However, this was the original project. “Fixed-price” equilibrium models emerged out of Don Patinkin ([1956] 1965), Robert Clower (1965), and Axel Leijonhufvud’s (1968) interpretation of the General Theory (1936). All three considered that John Maynard Keynes (1936) was concerned with the dynamic of markets when individuals behaved under rationing constraints. From there, they all tried to provide microfoundations to a model capable of portraying disequilibrium adjustment processes occurring in capitalist economies. The question is whether “fixed-price” theorists abandoned this project. My paper shows that Robert Barro and Herschel Grossman did not. When elaborating the seminal “fixed-price” model (1971), they had a second step in mind. It was to build a dynamic disequilibrium model. It turns out to be very much in the spirit of Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower’s (1965). I present its main features and discuss its scope. By doing so, I account for the richness and limits of the research line that Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower (1965) initiated but barely explored. JEL Codes: B13, B21, B22, D45, D5, E12. Keywords: dynamics, disequilibrium, microfoundations of macroeconomics, Barro and Grossman. 1 Duke University, Department of Economics, Center for the History of Political Economy, e-mail: [email protected] 1 Introduction During the 1970s, most macroeconomists, including Robert Barro and Hershel Grossman (1971), Jean-Pascal Bénassy (1975), Jacques Drèze (1975), Jean-Michel Grandmont and Guy Laroque (1976), and Edmond Malinvaud (1977), developed “fixed-price” equilibrium models. Such models featured equilibria with rationing on markets. Not the dynamic of non- clearing markets. However, this was the original project. “Fixed-price” equilibrium models emerged out of Don Patinkin ([1956] 1965), Robert Clower (1965), and Axel Leijonhufvud’s (1968) interpretation of the General Theory (1936). All three considered that John Maynard Keynes (1936) was concerned with the dynamic of markets when individuals behaved under rationing constraints. From there, they all tried to provide microfoundations to a model capable of portraying disequilibrium adjustment processes occurring in capitalist economies. The question is whether “fixed-price” theorists abandoned this project. My paper shows that Barro and Grossman did not.2 While presenting the seminal “fixed-price” equilibrium model, Barro and Grossman (1971) showed a concern for disequilibrium dynamics. They argued that their “analysis did have implications for the appropriate specification of the forces making for changes in prices and wages” (1971: p. 84); they considered “a parenthetical example concerning the cyclical behavior of real wages” (1971: p. 84); and they referred to an article in which Grossman (1971) addressed “in details (…) the disequilibrium behavior of prices and interest” (1971: p. 85). All these remarks suggest that the 1971 model was just a stage in the process of developing a dynamic disequilibrium model. A conjecture which becomes even more plausible when reading the contents of Money, Employment, and Inflation (Barro and Grossman, 1976). Section 2.5 offered a “Dynamic analysis in the absence of recontracting”, Section 4.4.3 analyzed the “Dynamic effects of monetary policy”, Chapter 5 explored the dynamic of “Inflation and unemployment”, and Chapter 6 focused on “The Dynamics of aggregate demand” (1976: vi- vii). The challenge is to place dynamics at the heart of Barro and Grossman’s disequilibrium program of microfoundations. This requires to show that when writing the 1971 article, Barro and Grossman had a dynamic approach to disequilibrium economics. Then, I have to determine how Barro and Grossman modeled the operation of economic activities during the adjustment 2 Matthieu Renault, Goulven Rubin, and I express a similar viewpoint in a recent working paper, centered on French “fixed-price” theorists. 2 of markets. To overcome these difficulties, I place their disequilibrium program of microfoundations in its intellectual context. Emphasis is given to two sources of inspirations: disequilibrium macroeconomics à la Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower (1965), and non- tâtonnement economics à la Frank Hahn and Takashi Negishi (1962). Besides, I analyze in depth “Market Disequilibrium in a Macro-Economic Context”, an unpublished manuscript written by Grossman in 1968, and Money, Employment, and Inflation (1976).3 In that process, two interpretations of Barro and Grossman’s microfoundational program are challenged. The first one asserts that Barro and Grossman either marginalized or abandoned Patinkin ([1956] 1965), Clower (1965), and Leijonhufvud’s (1968) project to model the dynamic of non-clearing markets. The extreme position is supported by Michel de Vroey (2016), in A History of Macroeconomics from Keynes to Lucas and Beyond. Whilst acknowledging that Barro and Grossman “found inspiration in reading Patinkin, Clower, and Leijonhufvud”, De Vroey argue that like other “fixed-price” theorists, they “were striving to produce an equilibrium result, a radically different project” (2016: p. 124). Roger Backhouse and Mauro Boianovsky (2013) are more nuanced in Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956-2003. They acknowledge that Barro and Grossman (1976) extended their “[1971] model to encompass dynamics” (2013: p. 78). But this is not presented as a central element of their disequilibrium program of microfoundations. The treatment of “wage and price dynamics” would be just one extension “amongst” others of the 1971 model (2013: p. 72). The second interpretation concerns the analytical proximity between Patinkin ([1956] 1965), Clower (1965), and Barro & Grossman’s models. The three historians consider that it is limited. Barro and Grossman would use simply Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower’s (1965) foundations – i.e., the spillover effect and the dual-decision hypothesis. By contrast, I argue that just like Patinkin ([1956] 1965), Clower (1965), and Leijonhufvud (1968), Barro and Grossman’s project was to model disequilibrium adjustment processes. They completed it by elaborating a disequilibrium model very much in the spirit of Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower’s (1965). I present its main features and discuss its scope. By doing so, I account for the richness and limits of the research line that Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower (1965) initiated but barely explored. 3 Juan Carlos Acosta found this manuscript in Franco Modigliani’s Papers, at Duke University. I would like to thank him for giving me access to it. 3 1. A dynamic approach to disequilibrium economics Just like Patinkin ([1956] 1965) and Clower (1965) or Hahn and Negishi (1962), Barro and Grossman adopted a dynamic approach to disequilibrium economics. They considered disequilibrium as a phenomenon occurring only during the market-clearing process. From there, the challenge was to provide microfoundations to a dynamic theory of spillover and to study the stability properties of Walrasian equilibrium. 1.1 Background Barro and Grossman initiated their disequilibrium program of microfoundations between 1968 and 1971, at Brown University.4 In 1968, Grossman wrote “Market Disequilibrium in a Macro-Economic Context”. In this research project (submitted to the National Science Foundation), he argued that the “existing macro-economic literature” (i.e., Walrasian macroeconomics à la Hicks) was inappropriate for “explaining and predicting the behavior of the actual economy.5 For the actual economy may rarely, if ever be in equilibrium” (1968: p. 5). According to Grossman, the bulk of actual exchange took place while individuals would like to buy and/or to sell more, given market prices. Hence the need to “analyze explicitly the behavior of macro-economic systems which [were] not necessarily or even typically characterized by market equilibrium” (1968: p. 5). Such an approach to macroeconomics already attracted Barro’s interest while he was in graduate school at Harvard (Backhouse and Boianovsky, 2013: p. 67). Thus, when arriving at Brown University in 1968, he engaged with Grossman.6 This resulted in a collaboration which culminated in the publications of “A General Disequilibrium Model of Income and Employment” (1971) and of Money, Employment, and Inflation (1976). 4 In the preface of Money, Employment, and Inflation (1976), Barro and Grossman explained that their “monograph [was] the outgrowth of ideas developed while [they] were colleagues at Brown University from 1968 to 1971. During that period, [they] became aware that [they] shared similar reservations about the weak foundations of conventional macro-economic analysis. [They] both felt the need for a substantial restructuring of these foundations, especially to deal adequately with the problem of exchange under non-market-clearing conditions” (1976: xi). 5 “The existing macro-economic literature deals primarily with analysis of the characteristics and stability properties of market equilibrium: that is, the condition of equality between aggregate supply and demand. The classic example is the Hicksian comparative static analysis of the values of dependent variables consistent with market equilibrium” (1968: p. 5). 6 In “Money, Interest, and Prices in Market
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chretien Consensus
    End of the CHRÉTIEN CONSENSUS? Jason Clemens Milagros Palacios Matthew Lau Niels Veldhuis Copyright ©2017 by the Fraser Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. The authors of this publication have worked independently and opinions expressed by them are, therefore, their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Fraser Institute or its supporters, Directors, or staff. This publication in no way implies that the Fraser Institute, its Directors, or staff are in favour of, or oppose the passage of, any bill; or that they support or oppose any particular political party or candidate. Date of issue: March 2017 Printed and bound in Canada Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data End of the Chrétien Consensus? / Jason Clemens, Matthew Lau, Milagros Palacios, and Niels Veldhuis Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-88975-437-9 Contents Introduction 1 Saskatchewan’s ‘Socialist’ NDP Begins the Journey to the Chrétien Consensus 3 Alberta Extends and Deepens the Chrétien Consensus 21 Prime Minister Chrétien Introduces the Chrétien Consensus to Ottawa 32 Myths of the Chrétien Consensus 45 Ontario and Alberta Move Away from the Chrétien Consensus 54 A New Liberal Government in Ottawa Rejects the Chrétien Consensus 66 Conclusions and Recommendations 77 Endnotes 79 www.fraserinstitute.org d Fraser Institute d i ii d Fraser Institute d www.fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary TheChrétien Consensus was an implicit agreement that transcended political party and geography regarding the soundness of balanced budgets, declining government debt, smaller and smarter government spending, and competi- tive taxes that emerged in the early 1990s and lasted through to roughly the mid-2000s.
    [Show full text]
  • Prof Robert Barro
    Guest Lecturer Robert Barro MiEMacroeconomic EfffftfGtects from Government Purchases and Taxes Robert J. Barro is Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University , and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in physics from Caltech. Barro is co-editor of Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics and was recently President of the Western Economic Association and Vice President of the American Economic Association. He is honorary dean of the China Economics & Management Academy, Central University of Beijing. He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998. He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth. Noteworthy research includes empirical determinants of economic growth , economic effects of public debt and budget deficits, and the formation of monetary policy. Recent books include Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach from Thompson/Southwestern, Economic Growth (2nd edition, written with Xavier Sala-i-Martin), Nothing Is Sacred: Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right: Markets and Choices in a Free Society, all from MIT Press. Current research focuses on two very different topics: the interplay between religion and political economy and the impact of rare disasters on asset markets Where: Level 5, The Treasury, 1 The Terrace When: 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Thursday 17 March 2011 RSVP: Ellen Shields by Friday 4 March 2011 To confirm your attendance, contact: For more information, contact: Ellen Shields Grant Scobie Program Administrator Convenor Academic Linkages Programme [email protected] [email protected] Ph: 04 890 7202 Ph: 04 917 6005.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribute to Axel Leijonhufvud
    A great teacher 6 Computable economics 24 Experimental Economics 30 Adaptive Economic Process 32 Behavioral Economics 36 Institutional Economics 40 Evolutionary Economic 44 Dynamics Agent-Based Computational 48 Economics Agent-Based Finance 58 Financial Instability and 62 Crisis 68 Networks and Innovation 72 Macroeconomics and Financial Crisis 78 Evolution of Social Preferences 84 Market Design 88 Modularity and Design for Innovation 92 Financial Crisis 98 Inequality and the Changing Distribution of Income 104 Macroeconomic Coordination and Externalities 110 New Thinking on the Firm 118 Macroeconomics after the crisis: looking ahead A GREAT TEACHER 6 his is the last Summer School after almost twenty years. It could be a melancholic event, but should not be so. We had Ta rare chance to reflect on the challenges for economic analysis, in the spirit of open- minded exploration that Axel instilled to the School form beginning to end. This meeting today is also an opportunity to celebrate Axel´s contributions to our craft and to express the gratitude that we (quite a few of us here) feel for having been able to learn for him, professionally, and also personally. It is on both these terms that I would like to offer my brief remarks. I first knew about Axel in Argentina through a friend who referred me to the Spanish translation of the book on Keynes. Those were grim times in the country, economically and otherwise, and we were anxious searching for ideas to understand what had been going on. The book impressed me strongly. It was full of analytical insights on crucial questions about economic coordination, and at the same time, it allowed one to glimpse useful ways to speak about actual experiences of macro instability.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full PDF
    Job Name:2178263 Date:15-03-05 PDF Page:2178263pbc.p1.pdf Color: Cyan Magenta Yellow Black Thelmpaet 01 SoelalSeeurlty on PrivateSaving TheImpact 01 SocialSecurity on Private Saving Evidenee from theU.S.Time Series RobertJ. Barro Withareplyby Martin reldstela American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Robert J. Barro is professor of economics at the University of Rochester. Martin Feldstein is professor of economics at Harvard Uni­ versity and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Barro, Robert J The impact of social security on private saving. (AEI studies; 199) 1. Social security-United States. 2. Saving and investment-United States. I. Feldstein, Martin 5., joint author. II. Title. III. Series: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. HD7125.B33 332'.0415'0973 78-16945 ISBN 0-8447-3301-6 AEI studies 199 ©1978 by American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Permission to quote from or to reproduce materials in this publication is granted when due acknowledgment is made. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neoclassical Synthesis
    Department of Economics- FEA/USP In Search of Lost Time: The Neoclassical Synthesis MICHEL DE VROEY PEDRO GARCIA DUARTE WORKING PAPER SERIES Nº 2012-07 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, FEA-USP WORKING PAPER Nº 2012-07 In Search of Lost Time: The Neoclassical Synthesis Michel De Vroey ([email protected]) Pedro Garcia Duarte ([email protected]) Abstract: Present-day macroeconomics has sometimes been dubbed ‘the new neoclassical synthesis’, suggesting that it constitutes a reincarnation of the neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s. This paper assesses this understanding. To this end, we examine the contents of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ neoclassical syntheses. We show that the neoclassical synthesis originally had no fixed content, but two meanings gradually became dominant. First, it designates the program of integrating Keynesian and Walrasian theory. Second, it designates the methodological principle that in macroeconomics it is better to have alternative models geared towards different purposes than a hegemonic general- equilibrium model. The paper documents that: (a) the first program was never achieved; (b) Lucas’s criticisms of Keynesian macroeconomics eventually caused the neoclassical synthesis program to vanish from the scene; (c) the rise of DSGE macroeconomics marked the end of the neoclassical synthesis mark II; and (d) contrary to present-day understanding, the link between the old and the new synthesis is at best weak.. Keywords: neoclassical synthesis; new neoclassical synthesis; Paul Samuelson; Robert Lucas; Robert Solow JEL Codes: B22; B30; E12; E13 IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME: THE NEOCLASSICAL SYNTHESIS Michel De Vroey and Pedro Garcia Duarte ◊ Abstract Present-day macroeconomics has sometimes been dubbed ‘the new neoclassical synthesis’, suggesting that it constitutes a reincarnation of the neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Management of Indexed and Nominal Debt
    ANNALS OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 4, 1–15 (2003) Optimal Management of Indexed and Nominal Debt Robert Barro Department of Economics , Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138-3001, USA E-mail: [email protected] A tax-smoothing objective is used to assess the optimal composition of pub- lic debt with respect to maturity and contingencies. This objective motivates the government to make its debt payouts contingent on the levels of public outlay and the tax base. If these contingencies are present, but asset prices of non-contingent indexed debt are stochastic, then full tax smoothing dictates an optimal maturity structure of the non-contingent debt. If the certainty- equivalent outlays are the same for each period, then the government should guarantee equal real payouts in each period, that is, the debt takes the form of indexed consols. This structure insulates the government’s budget constraint from unpredictable variations in the market prices of indexed bonds of various maturities. If contingent debt is precluded, then the government may want to depart from a consol maturity structure to exploit covariances among public outlay, the tax base, and the term structure of real interest rates. However, if moral hazard is the reason for the preclusion of contingent debt, then this con- sideration also deters exploitation of these covariances and tends to return the optimal solution to the consol maturity structure. The issue of nominal bonds may allow the government to exploit the covariances among public outlay, the tax base, and the rate of inflation. But if moral-hazard explains the absence of contingent debt, then the same reasoning tends to make nominal debt issue undesirable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Neoclassical Synthesis
    Department of Economics- FEA/USP In Search of Lost Time: The Neoclassical Synthesis MICHEL DE VROEY PEDRO GARCIA DUARTE WORKING PAPER SERIES Nº 2012-07 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, FEA-USP WORKING PAPER Nº 2012-07 In Search of Lost Time: The Neoclassical Synthesis Michel De Vroey ([email protected]) Pedro Garcia Duarte ([email protected]) Abstract: Present day macroeconomics has been sometimes dubbed as the new neoclassical synthesis, suggesting that it constitutes a reincarnation of the neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s. This has prompted us to examine the contents of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ neoclassical syntheses. Our main conclusion is that the latter bears little resemblance with the former. Additionally, we make three points: (a) from its origins with Paul Samuelson onward the neoclassical synthesis notion had no fixed content and we bring out four main distinct meanings; (b) its most cogent interpretation, defended e.g. by Solow and Mankiw, is a plea for a pluralistic macroeconomics, wherein short-period market non-clearing models would live side by side with long-period market-clearing models; (c) a distinction should be drawn between first and second generation new Keynesian economists as the former defend the old neoclassical synthesis while the latter, with their DSGE models, adhere to the Lucasian view that macroeconomics should be based on a single baseline model. Keywords: neoclassical synthesis; new neoclassical synthesis; DSGE models; Paul Samuelson; Robert Lucas JEL Codes: B22; B30; E12; E13 1 IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME: THE NEOCLASSICAL SYNTHESIS Michel De Vroey1 and Pedro Garcia Duarte2 Introduction Since its inception, macroeconomics has witnessed an alternation between phases of consensus and dissent.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucas on the Lucasian Transformation of Macroeconomics: an Assessment M
    Lucas on the Lucasian Transformation of Macroeconomics: an Assessment M. De Vroey Discussion Paper 2010-32 LUCAS ON THE LUCASIAN TRANSFORMATION OF MACROECONOMICS: AN ASSESSMENT Michel De Vroey ◊ July 2010 Abstract Robert Lucas is rightfully credited with having changed the course of macroeconomic theory. The aim of this paper is to document his transformation from a potential contributor to Keynesian macroeconomics to the master builder of an alternative paradigm, equilibrium macroeconomics. I reconstruct Lucas’s theoretical journey as involving seven steps: (1) his pre-macroeconomic years, (2) his early work as a macroeconomist, jointly with Rapping, (3) the ‘Expectations and the Neutrality of Money’ 1972 article, (4) his inaugural equilibrium model of the business cycle, (5) his all-out attack on Keynesian macroeconomics, (6) the passing of the baton to Kydland and Prescott, and (7) his standpoint after the victory of the approach he so much contributed to launch. JEL classification: B 22; B 31; E30. Keywords: Lucas, new classical macroeconomics. ◊ IRES, University of Louvain, [email protected] A first version of this paper was presented at seminars given at the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia. The author is grateful to the participants at these seminars for their remarks. He also acknowledges his gratitude to Robert Lucas for having authorized him to quote from the Lucas Archives held at Duke University, as well as for his comments on the paper. Kevin Hoover’s vivid comments on an earlier version were also stimulating. 1 INTRODUCTION In the late 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, macroeconomics underwent a radical change, which resulted in the overthrow of Keynesian IS-LM macroeconomics and its replacement by dynamic stochastic general-equilibrium macroeconomics.
    [Show full text]
  • George Mason University Department of Economics Economics 715 Macroeconomics Theory I Fall Semester 2010
    George Mason University Department of Economics Economics 715 Macroeconomics Theory I Fall Semester 2010 Prof. Carlos D. Ramírez Enterprise Hall 341 Tel. 703-993-1145 Office Hours: by appointment (send me an e-mail) e-mail: [email protected] Teaching Assistant: Jeffrey Horn e-mail: [email protected] I. Introduction This course will introduce you to the main topics in growth (about half of the course), as well as traditional issues in short-term economic fluctuations (remainder of the course). In the process you are expected to (and hopefully will) develop basic analytical skills (see mathematical preliminaries handout) necessary to solve and understand macroeconomic models. The course is designed for first-year Ph.D. students in economics. Prerequisites include macroeconomics at the undergraduate level, as well as a good understanding of calculus and basic differential equations. Students are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the material in any of the following intermediate macroeconomics texts: (a) Macroeconomics (R. Dornbusch, S. Fisher, and R. Startz,) now it is 11th edition! (b) Macroeconomics: Economic Growth, Fluctuations, and Policy (R. Hall & D.H. Papell) 6th edition. (c) Macroeconomics (N.G. Mankiw) 7th edition. This is the best selling undergraduate macroeconomics textbook. (d) Macroeconomics (A. Abel, B. Bernanke, and D. Croushore) 7th edition. II. Class Requirements: This class requires a great amount of commitment and dedication. There will be a midterm (October 18, 2010) and a final (December 20, 2010). The midterm will count for 40% of your grade. The comprehensive final examination will determine 55% of the final grade. The remaining 5% will come from doing problem sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Axel Leijonhufvud’S
    A Dictionary Article on Axel Leijonhufvud’s On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes: A Study in Monetary Theory by Peter Howitt Brown University January 29, 2002 Draft of an article to be translated into French and published in the Dictionnaire des grandes œuvres économiques, edited by Xavier Greffe, Jérôme Lallement and Michel deVroey, to be published by Éditions Dalloz. On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes: A Study in Monetary Theory 1. Professor Leijonhufvud’s book, which emerged from his PhD. Dissertation at Northwestern University, was published in 1968, a critical time in the development of macroeconomic theory. Keynesian Economics was at its zenith. Policymakers around the world had adopted it as their guide to conducting stabilization policy. American Keynesians, proudly pointing to the long economic expansion following the 1962 tax-cuts that they had advocated to close the deflationary gap, claimed that their “New Economics” had vanquished the business cycle. Keynesian ideas had won over all but the most willful advocates of laissez-faire, to the point where it was commonly agreed that “we are all Keynesians now.” Keynesian Economics dominated teaching and academic research as much as it did policy-making. The IS-LM model that Hicks and Hansen had extracted from Keynes’s General Theory had become the reigning paradigm of macroeconomics. Theorists had developed choice- theoretic microfoundations for its major components - the consumption function, the demand function for investment and the demand function for money - informed by a huge volume of empirical research. The apparent success of the Keynesian research program had persuaded many that the broad outlines of macroeconomic theory were now settled, that there was nothing left for theorists to do but fill in the details.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Robert Lucas (1967-1981): His Influence and Influences
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Andrada, Alexandre F.S. Article Understanding Robert Lucas (1967-1981): his influence and influences EconomiA Provided in Cooperation with: The Brazilian Association of Postgraduate Programs in Economics (ANPEC), Rio de Janeiro Suggested Citation: Andrada, Alexandre F.S. (2017) : Understanding Robert Lucas (1967-1981): his influence and influences, EconomiA, ISSN 1517-7580, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, pp. 212-228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2016.09.001 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/179646 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ www.econstor.eu HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect EconomiA 18 (2017) 212–228 Understanding Robert Lucas (1967-1981): his influence ଝ and influences Alexandre F.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 314 Coursebook, 2012 Jeffrey Parker
    Economics 314 Coursebook, 2012 Jeffrey Parker 10 IMPERFECT COMPETITION AND REAL AND NOMINAL PRICE RIGIDITY Chapter 10 Contents A. Topics and Tools ............................................................................ 1 B. What’s New and Keynesian about “New Keynesian” Economics ............... 3 Institutions of price setting .............................................................................................5 Market structure and price adjustment............................................................................ 6 C. Romer’s Model of Imperfect Competition ............................................. 7 Household utility maximization .................................................................................... 7 Firms’ behavior .......................................................................................................... 11 Equilibrium ............................................................................................................... 12 Properties of the model ................................................................................................ 14 D. Nominal and real rigidities ............................................................... 15 Mankiw’s menu-cost model ......................................................................................... 16 Interaction of nominal and real rigidities ...................................................................... 17 Coordination failures .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]