Blog Post

Rebuilding macroeconomics: Initial reflections on a major theory project

The ‘Rebuilding Macroeconomic Theory Project’ came to an end in the most recent volume of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy; how were the various papers’ conclusions received?

By: Date: January 29, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

The latest volume of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy (OREP) marks the conclusion of the Rebuilding Macroeconomic Theory Project. According to David Vines and Samuel Wills, the two economists who conceived it, the central purpose of the project was to invite “a number of leading macroeconomists to describe how the benchmark New Keynesian model might be rebuilt, in the wake of the 2008 crisis”. For Martin Sandbu, it is “the most impressive post-crisis effort of rethinking how macroeconomics should be done, by many of the field’s top practitioners”. This blogs’ review focuses on the initial reactions in the blogosphere to some of the papers.

Martin Sandbu in his Free Lunch column for the Financial Times summarises the contributions in a series of articles. One of his takes from the project relates to the role of microfoundations, “the different assumptions about microeconomic behaviour and the macroeconomic relationships they give rise to”. He diagnoses the lack of a convincing theory of such microeconomic behaviour as the key issue with microfoundations and, therefore, calls for more openness in deciding which microfoundations to adhere to.

For Sandbu, continuous trial and the ensuing “disagreement about which micro assumptions are ad hoc and which are well-founded” is the only way forward. Importantly, he stressed the need to incorporate this pluralism under a common, basic framework, namely the current standard Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) approach.

The debate about the role of microfoundations is one in which multiple co-authors of the OREP volume engage. Simon Wren-Lewis, one of the contributors focusing specifically on microfoundations in his paper, sees what he calls “microfoundations hegemony” as the central roadblock to the advancement of macroeconomics.  Since publication, he has followed up with two blogs in which he levels two criticisms: that the hegemony is stifling valuable alternative approaches to macroeconomics, and that microfoundations have been obfuscating value judgments made by the modelers.

The first criticism has to do with the preponderance of achieving internal consistency in a model, over other considerations such as empirical support; for example, augmenting the standard modelling of consumption with a term for the level of unemployment, with the purpose of building a model that fits the data better, could be rejected for failing to satisfy this theoretical internal consistency. Wren-Lewis’ argument is that alternative approaches to macroeconomics in general are dismissed, that this has led to diverting attention and, by consequence, slowing down progress in the field. Rather than rejecting the microfoundations approach, he believes that it is one of many complementary methodologies.

In his second criticism, he maintains that the primacy of internally-consistent, microfounded macroeconomics has rendered choices that modellers make on the basis of value judgements harder to trace. As an example Wren-Lewis mentions the replacement of ad-hoc policymaker preferences regarding deviations of output and inflation with internally consistent ones, derived from the preferences of the representative consumer inhabiting the model. Not only were the resulting preferences unrealistic compared to empirical evidence, but they had also taken “a value judgement away from policy makers”.

Paul Krugman’s paper also elicited response. Among the many points he raises, Krugman makes the following remark: in contrast to previous episodes, namely the Great Depression of the 1930s and the stagflation of the 1970s, “there hasn’t been a big new idea” in macroeconomics this time around. This, he says, is because macroeconomics proved “good for government work”. Krugman justifies his “controversial answer” by arguing that the policy prescriptions suggested by macroeconomics were the right ones and proved to be sufficient in avoiding economic disaster. For him, the failure to see the crisis coming does not pose a “deep conceptual issue” for economic models: it was not a lack of understanding of the possible mechanism” but a lack of attention to the right data” (e.g. overlooking institutional changes in the financial sector, the rise in household debt and looking at house-price growth in the aggregate rather than at a more local level).

In his Project Syndicate article, Robert Sidelsky takes issue with that point of Krugman’s. Firstly, ignoring the “right data” is a conceptual problem for New Keynesian economics, because the choice of evidence is theory-driven: theory took for granted that financial institutions accurately price risk and this is why it missed the fact that financial institutions actually under-priced risk. Secondly, the adoption of the New Keynesian policy prescription was short-lived and proved that there is no intellectual case made by the theory for sustained intervention.

In opposition to Krugman, Sidelsky thus concludes that macroeconomics needs to come up with a new big idea. He asserts that macroeconomists need to acknowledge radical uncertainty in their theories in order to build policy intervention in good times to avoid bad times.

What seems safe to assume at this point is that we have seen only a small part of the response bound to be generated by the comprehensive and diverse collection of opinions contained in the OREP tome.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Trade Wars: what are they good for?

Following the US announcements in early March of their intent to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, and the subsequent threats from China to retaliate with their own tariffs, the global trade picture remains uncertain. The IMF and the World Bank Spring Meetings set off amid US-Japan bilateral negotiations and Trump’s hot-and-cold approach to the TPP. This week we review blogs’ views on tensions over international trade and how they can impact world economic growth.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 23, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The debate on euro-area reform

A paper jointly written by 14 French and German economists set off a debate about the reform of euro-area macroeconomic governance. We review economists’ opinions about it.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 16, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Latvia’s money laundering scandal

Latvia’s third largest bank ABLV sought emergency liquidity from the ECB and eventually voted to start a process of voluntary liquidation, after being accused by US authorities of large-scale money laundering and having failed to produce a survival plan. What does it mean for the ECB?

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 9, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Milton Friedman's " The role of monetary policy" - 50 years later

In March 1968, Milton Friedman’s “The Role of Monetary Policy” - after his famous presidential address to the American Economic Association - was published in the American Economic Review. 50 years later, economists reflect on this famous work.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: April 3, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Brexit Transition Deal

Michel Barnier, the European Union’s Brexit negotiator, and David Davis, Britain’s Brexit secretary, announced a transition deal on March 19. We review recently published opinions about the deal and its implications.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Central banks in the age of populism

Two years of elections have shown that we live in an age of increasing political and economic populism. What are the consequences of that for central banks? We explore opinions about it, from both 2017 and more recently.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: March 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Are we steel friends?

The U.S. administration is considering to impose tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminium (10%), based on a national security argument. We review economists’ views about this major shift in U.S.’ trade policy.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Getting accustomed to Brexit - UK and the customs union scenario

The Labour Party’s support of customs union membership has the potential to change the course of Brexit, with 13 months left to close negotiations. This week we review the commentary around the possibility of a post-Brexit EU-UK Customs Union.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 5, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Italian elections

Italy goes to the polls on March 4, with a new electoral law that is largely viewed as unable to deliver a stable government. We review recent opinions and expectations,  as well as economists’ assessment of the cost/coverage of parties’ economic promises. 

By: Silvia Merler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 26, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Venezuela’s hyperinflation

The International Monetary Fund forecasts Venezuelan inflation spiralling to 13,000 percent this year. As President Maduro is expected to introduce the “petro” cryptocurrency next week, we review economists’ recent (and less recent) opinions on the current crisis.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The stock market slide

The stock market dropped last week, leading to questions and debates as to the underlying reasons. We review economists’ views on the issue.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: February 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Economies of States, Economies of Cities

Both in Europe and the US, economists are starting to notice how the economies of cities have been sometimes diverging from the economies of states. While some areas thrive, others may be permanently left behind. Maybe it is time to adopt a more clearly sub-national perspective. We review recent contributions on this issue.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 5, 2018
Load more posts