Macroeconomics is your guide to how economics shape how the world functions today. But too often our understanding is based on orthodox, dogmatic analysis. This distinctive book draws upon years of critical questioning and teaching and exposes how macroeconomic theory has evolved from its origins to its current impoverished and extreme state.
Moving from the Keynesian Revolution to the Monetarist Counter-Revolution, through to New Classical Economics and New Consensus Macroeconomics, the authors both elaborate and question the methods and content of macroeconomic theory at a level appropriate for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies.
Macroeconomics provides a unique alternative to the multitude of standard textbooks by locating macroeconomic theory in its own history. It will be perfect for those studying macroeconomics, as well as for those looking for a new way to understand our increasingly complicated economic system.
It is accompanied by a counterpart Microeconomics: A Critical Companion.
Macroeconomics is your guide to how economics shape how the world functions today. But too often our understanding is based on orthodox, dogmatic analysis. This distinctive book draws upon years of critical questioning and teaching and exposes how macroeconomic theory has evolved from its origins to its current impoverished and extreme state.
Moving from the Keynesian Revolution to the Monetarist Counter-Revolution, through to New Classical Economics and New Consensus Macroeconomics, the authors both elaborate and question the methods and content of macroeconomic theory at a level appropriate for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies.
Macroeconomics provides a unique alternative to the multitude of standard textbooks by locating macroeconomic theory in its own history. It will be perfect for those studying macroeconomics, as well as for those looking for a new way to understand our increasingly complicated economic system.
It is accompanied by a counterpart Microeconomics: A Critical Companion.
eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Macroeconomics is your guide to how economics shape how the world functions today. But too often our understanding is based on orthodox, dogmatic analysis. This distinctive book draws upon years of critical questioning and teaching and exposes how macroeconomic theory has evolved from its origins to its current impoverished and extreme state.
Moving from the Keynesian Revolution to the Monetarist Counter-Revolution, through to New Classical Economics and New Consensus Macroeconomics, the authors both elaborate and question the methods and content of macroeconomic theory at a level appropriate for both undergraduate and postgraduate studies.
Macroeconomics provides a unique alternative to the multitude of standard textbooks by locating macroeconomic theory in its own history. It will be perfect for those studying macroeconomics, as well as for those looking for a new way to understand our increasingly complicated economic system.
It is accompanied by a counterpart Microeconomics: A Critical Companion.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781783718078 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Pluto Press |
| Publication date: | 04/20/2016 |
| Series: | IIPPE |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 224 |
| File size: | 2 MB |
About the Author
Ben Fine is Professor of Economics at SOAS, University of London. He is the author of the critical texts, Macroeconomics and Microeconomics (Pluto, 2016), co-author of Marx's 'Capital' (Pluto, 2016) and co-editor of Beyond the Developmental State (Pluto, 2013). He was awarded both the Deutscher and Myrdal Prizes in 2009.
Ourania Dimakou is Lecturer in Economics at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. She specialises in macroeconomic theory, policy and institutional design, particularly the central bank independence paradigm.
Ben Fine is Professor of Economics at SOAS, University of London. He is the author of the critical texts, Macroeconomics and Microeconomics (Pluto, 2016), co-author of Marx's 'Capital' (Pluto, 2016) and co-editor of Beyond the Developmental State (Pluto, 2013). He was awarded both the Deutscher and Myrdal Prizes in 2009.
Ourania Dimakou is Lecturer in Economics at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. She specialises in macroeconomic theory, policy and institutional design, particularly the central bank independence paradigm.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Macroeconomy versus Macroeconomics?
1.1 Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the nature of mainstream macroeconomics both in terms of substantive content, conceptualisations and methods. Prior to the global financial crisis, it was argued that a wide consensus had been reached in macroeconomics over the passage of the previous 30 years or so, with compromise and convergence between monetarism and Keynesianism. Effectively, what was a consolidation around what is to constitute the prime subject matter of the field and how it should be explored, found a presence not only in academic research, but also across policymaking circles (particularly central banks) and undoubtedly teaching.
What should be acknowledged in this evolution of macroeconomics into the current consensus is a manifold reduction in the scope and method of the study of the macroeconomy, not only relative to previous theorising in classical political economy, but also at the expense of what has been excluded from other approaches at the time that macroeconomics emerged. These include, for example, structural characteristics and processes of the capitalist economy such as monopolisation, distribution of income, role of institutions, sources of productivity change and an integrated view of cycles and growth. This reductionism can be traced at a number of levels, not least through the prominence and division between macroeconomics and microeconomics; the subordination of the former to the latter, particularly, but not exclusively through convergence on general equilibrium; the division and narrow conceptualisation of the short and long runs; and all of this through the corresponding methods of inquiry.
In short, today's New Consensus Macroeconomics (NCM) views its primary object as the study of short-run deviations of macroeconomic aggregates from a given long-run equilibrium. The latter is fixed, whilst the deviations are presumed to be the outcome of exogenous disturbances to an otherwise stable system. Under particular conditions, there may be room for (primarily) monetary policy to stabilise the system. This framing is undertaken by employing a very specific method, noticeably through deductive mathematical and quantitative modelling.
To understand the current state of macroeconomics, the following sections offer a brief overview of the evolution of some important aspects of mainstream theorising in (macro) economics. Whilst macroeconomic theory has offered, occasionally token, differences at particular times, and certainly has done so over time, there are common themes regarding how it has developed in conceiving the workings of the economy as a whole. These include how it should be disaggregated into its constituent parts (its structure), how markets are linked and rendered consistent with one another (an aspect of general equilibrium) and, related but distinct from the last theme, how the macroeconomy is aggregated back up to form a totality. In all these respects, microeconomics has been an increasingly essential influence, notably through the convergence of macroeconomics on general equilibrium and aggregation from optimising individual behaviour, as well as through the ethos of reliance upon formal models and mathematical, deductive reasoning.
Further, how time is treated in macroeconomics, specifically in distinguishing between the short and the long runs, has been conceptualised on many different levels, whilst these have been applied confusedly and interchangeably according to the question at hand. More specifically, short-run factors are narrowly understood, at least in part in order to maintain the distinction between it and the long run, with the latter an umbrella for a broader, but still narrow, range of other factors. This is illustrated, with considerable contemporary relevance, in how money and finance have been conceived within mainstream macroeconomics, with finance assigned predominantly to the domain of microeconomics and lying outside of the short/long-run dichotomy for macroeconomics.
Such neglect of finance in NCM theorising has been dramatically exposed by the financial crisis of the 2000s. It has demonstrated that money and finance cannot be treated as if separate – as if belonging, respectively, to macro and micro – and finance in particular straddles equally questionable dichotomies between short and long runs. Tensions involved between the micro and macro spheres and the role of money and finance are also reproduced in the various versions and concepts of the efficient market hypothesis (discussed in Box 1.1). In short, the crisis has exposed limitations of mainstream macroeconomics that cannot be rectified by simply improving the model, as it is the very methods and framing of the macroeconomy that are at issue. Despite this (and the same point does not apply to money and finance alone but to other great determinants of the macroeconomy that are subject to neglect within macroeconomics), the reaction to these omissions by the mainstream has been business as usual and to set aside the crisis as a cascade of inconvenient truths. This is a habitual vice of the discipline, as will be seen, which is far from uncommon across the history of mainstream economics more generally, and one that is cumulative both intellectually and institutionally in its adoption in both breadth and depth, if not thereby verging on addiction. This is one way, at least, to understand why macroeconomics has (been) driven to such extremes with limited capacity to change let alone reverse direction.
1.2 The Short-Run and Long-Run Syndrome and Beyond
The division within economics between macroeconomics and microeconomics is well established and dominates the discipline in such a way that everything else, with the exception of the increasingly prominent econometrics, is a special subject or an option in teaching and, to some extent, research. Everyone does macro and micro, and econometrics, but no other field is compulsory in the same way and to the same extent. Even so, this conventional division, and form of hegemony and privilege, within the discipline is relatively new. It derives from the rise of Keynesianism in the 1930s, partly in response to the Great Depression. This gave us macroeconomics: an explicitly constructed concern with the workings of the economy as a whole, with a focus on the causes, cures and, if more occasionally, the consequences of massive unemployment.
Such a specification of macroeconomics left open a considerable space for other fields of study on which to focus. These can be loosely divided into two categories. One is equally concerned with the functioning of the economy as a whole but with issues overlapping with, but distinct from, the determinants of (un)employment and other, what would now be thought of as, Keynesian macroeconomic aggregates such as prices and output. Thus, economics can, and no doubt should, concern itself with the role of institutions, the distribution of income and wealth, the sources of technological change, monopolisation and formation of large-scale corporations, and trade unions, quite apart from problems of development and change around the world. The second, apparently much more mundane, category is the study of parts of the economy in isolation from the bigger picture, whether it be a household, an industry or a firm.
The second category is what has given us microeconomics. Not entirely by chance, it was in the process of being established, if with somewhat earlier origins than Keynesianism, in the 1930s, having gained a huge impetus from the marginalist revolution of the 1870s which gave birth to methods and concepts that are now familiar, such as marginal utility, marginal product and marginal cost, individual optimisation, and efficiency and equilibrium, and much more besides. The consolidation of microeconomics, alongside macroeconomics, as constituting the core of the discipline (with econometrics barely on the scene at this time) was completed in the second decade after the Second World War, not least with advances in general equilibrium theory.
With these three categories, macroeconomics, microeconomics and everything else, it is important to acknowledge that their weight within the discipline and the boundaries between them have not remained fixed. For boundaries there has been a double shift, with an uneven pace and incidence since the 1950s. One has been the increasing subordination of macroeconomics to microeconomics. The other has been the marginalisation of the 'everything else' category in terms of its methods, theories and conceptualisations except where it has been incorporated into microeconomics (or possibly an increasingly, micro-like macro). Development economics, for example, has been declared by some, indeed an increasing number, as not requiring separate methods to those applied to developed economies. After all, effective demand is effective demand wherever it prevails, as is the optimising behaviour of individuals. The (initial) conditions might be different but the principles remain the same. Much the same applies to one 'optional' field after another within the curriculum.
There is, however, a bit of a paradox across this outcome. As observed, the emergence of, and division between, macro and micro arose out of particular focuses on particular problems (unemployment for macro, optimising behaviour in supply and demand for micro) and could do so only by neglecting other considerations, the concern of the other fields. Having established themselves, however, micro and macro have increasingly turned their attention to incorporating those other concerns that they had studiously avoided in order to get themselves up and running in the first place.
Of course, it may well be that by some hugely fortunate, intellectual accident the principles discovered by micro and macro via this route do, indeed, have a much broader and legitimate scope of application, specifically to subject matter beyond their original intent. This is, however, more than questionable. At the very least, it has to be acknowledged that the micro/macro divide, far from being a dynamic duo, only broadens its scope of application by excluding, and even precluding, other methods, theories, concepts and factors from consideration.
This is going far beyond the subject matter of this text, which is concerned with macroeconomics alone. But the point can be illustrated by considering what is or should be the subject matter of macroeconomics. On the one hand, especially for the uninitiated, it might be thought that the subject of macroeconomics would be the analysis of the workings of the economy as a whole. On the other hand, there is macroeconomics as it is constituted as an academic discipline which is seen to be considerably narrower than the previous definition. Following the Keynesian revolution, macroeconomics primarily became the study of short-run deviations in employment and output, together with other macroeconomic aggregates such as the general price level, around what has been generally taken to be a given trend, or even an equilibrium. More than occasionally, macroeconomics may stray into wider domains, such as growth, but these have become and remained far from central to the vast bulk of macroeconomics. Indeed, in many respects growth theory has stronger affinities to microeconomics than even to a narrowly defined macroeconomics.
This point can be made in a different way. Macroeconomics as the study of the workings of the economy as a whole long predates, if not in name, macroeconomics as currently constituted. The classical political economy of Smith, Ricardo and Marx, for example, certainly addressed the issue. But they did so with very different methods, concepts and objects of study, not least with a preoccupation with classes, distribution, the pace of accumulation and technical change and, indeed, whether capitalist growth could be sustained indefinitely. So, paradoxically, the emergence of macroeconomics as a commanding field within economics had the perverse effect of narrowing down what has been considered to be the workings of the economy as a whole, and not only in relation to what came before in the nineteenth century but also in relation to the 'other' economics that was present at the birth of macroeconomics itself, concerned with business cycles, institutions, distribution, technical change, monopolisation and so on.
Further, the process of narrowing the scope of macroeconomics, whilst marked by a distinct leap with the initial emergence of Keynesianism, has strengthened subsequently. It has done so through three processes that will be highlighted throughout the rest of this text. First has been the increasing attachment of macroeconomics to general equilibrium. This does itself have two distinct elements. On the one hand, there is the issue of consistency in the treatments of markets and market behaviour in the aggregate. Specifically, every (intended) sale must correspond to an (intended) purchase or, if interest is paid, someone else must receive it. Such reliance upon what is known as Walras' Law (or Say's Law in the absence of money, see Chapter 3), ties macroeconomics to general equilibrium. The contrast is with partial equilibrium in which, for example, the use of inputs by a producer, through which revenue accrues to the supplier, is examined no further.
Significantly, if not necessarily logically as a separate step, the consistency across all markets attached to Walras' Law, understood as the balance between supplies and demands in aggregate, is readily envisaged to lead to the presumption that all markets are linked through prices as a matter of adjustment, nominally over time, if out of equilibrium. Walrasian adjustment is one in which prices increase where there is excess demand and fall where there is excess supply. As is well known, as a consequence of developments within general equilibrium theory itself, it cannot be assumed except under stringent conditions that Walrasian adjustment will lead to equilibrium (let alone that it exists, and is unique and efficient). There is also the issue of whether production and trading take place before or after prices have had a chance to adjust to their equilibrium values (raising what is known as Hicksian false trading). The model of such Walrasian adjustment is explicitly seen as relying upon a Walrasian 'fictional' auctioneer, one who calls prices, assesses supplies and demands, and adjusts prices until they are correct. The problem is that we need the fiction, as so-called perfect competition depends upon everyone being a price-taker so there is no one to make the prices. James Meade, a Nobel Prize winner like John Hicks, who also invented the Keynesian IS/LM framework (see Chapter 5) wondered what the price of coffee would be, whilst traders were waiting for the auctioneer to decide their true equilibrium values.
So there is plenty of prestige behind the questioning of the validity of Walrasian adjustment for understanding the workings of the macroeconomy. As with many other such conundrums, despite increasing reliance upon general equilibrium, macroeconomics has tended to ignore whatever mathematical or technical results derived from it that are unpalatable for its model building. But the Walrasian architecture of equilibrium and adjustment has increasingly become part and parcel of macroeconomics, focusing on how supply and demand are formed and adjust around quantities and prices, on the basis of given preferences, resources and technologies, in conditions of greater or lesser competitiveness or market (im)perfections. Other issues profoundly affecting the macroeconomy tend to be excluded by a Walrasian framing drawn from general equilibrium.
To a large extent, then, whilst it is more or less taken for granted in principle, if not always in practice, that macroeconomics needs to incorporate Walras' Law, it is a moot point whether such corresponding consistency in the analysis of markets as a whole dominates much that has been excluded from macroeconomic analysis. Be this as it may, it is important to recognise that commitment to Walras' Law is entirely independent of the underlying theories of supply and demand over which it exerts its command. For, on the other hand, in the convergence of macroeconomics on general equilibrium there is the separate increasing reliance upon aggregating over optimising individuals as the foundation for macroeconomics. In short, and as a second overall feature of macroeconomics, it has increasingly become subordinated to microeconomics (with general equilibrium in the lead in this respect but not exclusively so).
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Macroeconomics"
by .
Copyright © 2016 Ben Fine and Ourania Dimakou.
Excerpted by permission of Pluto Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
List of BoxesList of Diagrams
List of Abbreviations
Preface, Preliminaries and Acknowledgements
1. Macroeconomy versus Macroeconomics?
2. Accelerator-Multiplier: Stabbing the Knife-Edge in the Back?
3. Classical Dichotomies
4. Growth Theories: Old, New or More of the Same?
5. The Keynesian Revolutions
6. Post-Keynesian Dilemmas
7. Keynesian Revolution: What Keynes, What Revolution?
8. From Monetarist Counter-Revolution to Fundamentalism
9. Forging the Consensus: Monetary Policy and Real Business Cycle Theory
10. From New Classical Fundamentalism to New Nonsensus Macroeconomics
11. International Macro?
12. The Enigmas of Overshooting
13. Whither Macroeconomics?
References
Index