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: and 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.

Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

An alpine divide? Comparing economic cultures in Germany and Italy

A discussion of Italian and German macro-economic cultures and performances.

Speakers: Thomas Mayer, Patricia Mosser, Marianne Nessén, Hiroshi Nakaso, Francesco Papadia, André Sapir and Jean-Claude Trichet Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: April 13, 2021
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

A European response to the coronavirus crisis with Paolo Gentiloni

This is the second event in our series with the Financial Times, where Paolo Gentiloni will discuss the European response to the coronavirus crisis.

Speakers: Paolo Gentiloni, Mehreen Khan and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: April 6, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

External Publication

How has the macroeconomic imbalances procedure worked in practice to improve the resilience of the euro area?

This paper shows how the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) could be streamlined and its underlying conceptual framework clarified. Implementation of the country-specific recommendations is low; their internal consistency is sometimes missing; despite past reforms, the MIP remains largely a countryby-country approach running the risk of aggravating the deflationary bias in the euro area. We recommend to streamline the scoreboard around a few meaningful indicators, involve national macro-prudential and productivity councils, better connect the various recommendations, simplify the language and further involve the Commission into national policy discussions. This document was prepared for the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.

By: Agnès Bénassy-Quéré and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 24, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Be bold now: coronavirus, the Eurogroup and fiscal safety nets

This blog post sketches two scenarios: one in which countries provide a large fiscal safety net to companies and another in which they do not. Both lead to similar debt-to-GDP ratios in 2021, but the safety net leads to a smaller and shorter recession and a quicker rebound. We then discuss how to fund a large response without fragmenting the euro area. Until the lockdowns end, such measures should be implemented.

By: Guntram B. Wolff and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 17, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Three macroeconomic issues and Covid-19

COVID-19 raises a number of serious issues of a sanitary, social and economic nature. While recognizing the difficulty of giving definitive answers at this early stage, we attempt to shed light on three critical macroeconomic topics.

By: Leonardo Cadamuro, Francesco Papadia and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: March 10, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

Climate risks to European banks: a new era of stress tests

Several European central banks have begun assessing the impact of adverse climate scenarios on banks’ capital. Comparable work at EU or euro area level has evolved more slowly. Supervisors need build up a distinct and more complex type of analysis, and should engage with banks now.

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: Energy & Climate, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: February 4, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

Factors determining Russia’s long-term growth rate

This paper’s main conclusion is that Russia’s economy cannot grow at the pace recorded in the early and mid-2000s because of the different external environment, the different stage of development and serious demographic headwinds.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 16, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

EU policy recommendations: A stronger legal framework is not enough to foster national compliance

In 2011, the EU introduced stricter rules to monitor the implementation of country-specific policy recommendations. Using a new dataset, this column investigates whether these new laws have increased national compliance. There is no evidence that these stricter processes matter for implementation rates, whereas macroeconomic fundamentals and market pressure are important determinants of implementation progress. These results suggest ways to improve the effectiveness of European policy coordination that go beyond stronger legal processes.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou, Guntram B. Wolff and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 23, 2019
Read article More by this author
 

Blog Post

It’s hard to live in the city: Berlin’s rent freeze and the economics of rent control

A proposal in Berlin to ban increases in rent for the next five years sparked intense debate in Germany. Similar policies to the Mietendeckel are currently being discussed in London and NYC. All three proposals reflect and raise similar concerns – the increase in per-capita incomes is not keeping pace with increases in rents, but will a cap do more harm than good? We review recent views on the matter.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: July 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The breakdown of the covered interest rate parity condition

A textbook condition of international finance breaks down. Economic research identifies the interplay between divergent monetary policies and new financial regulation as the source of the puzzle, and generates concerns about unintended consequences for financing conditions and financial stability.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou and Bruegel Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: July 1, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The June Eurogroup meeting: Reflections on BICC

The Eurogroup met on June 13th to discuss the deepening of the economic and monetary union (EMU) and prepare the discussions for the Euro Summit. From the meeting came two main deliverables: an agreement over a budgetary instrument for competitiveness and convergence and the reform of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty texts. We review economists’ first impressions.

By: Bruegel and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

The campaign against ‘nonsense’ output gaps

A campaign against “nonsense” consensus output gaps has been launched on social media. It has triggered responses focusing on the implications of output gaps for fiscal policy under EU rules, especially for Italy. But the debate about the reliability of output-gap estimates is more wide-ranging.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou and Bruegel Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 17, 2019
Load more posts