1. Macro has a lot bigger ramifications for people's lives (and hence for policy) than micro. If the govt. makes macro mistakes, people lose their jobs.
2. Macro is more controversial. People like controversy for several reasons, including A) that it's fun, and B) that disagreement among experts allows laypeople to feel like they have something more to contribute. Notice that the micro that gets discussed on blogs is usually something controversial like tax policy or education policy. On the science blogs, "does God exist" posts get orders of magnitude more hits than "latest results from the Large Hadron Collider" posts.
3. You're forgetting finance blogs, which have a lot of micro aspects, and which get far more hits than pure econ blogs, for obvious reasons.


  1. マクロ経済学の方が人々の生活(ひいては政策)への影響がミクロ経済学より遥かに大きい。政府がマクロ経済学に関する間違いを犯せば、人々は職を失う。
  2. マクロ経済学の方が議論が分かれる。人々は議論が分かれる方を好むが、その理由は、A)面白いから、B)専門家の間の意見の不一致により、素人の自分でも何か貢献できるかもという感覚を抱かせるから、である。ミクロ系のネタでブログでの議論の対象となるのも、税政策や教育政策のような議論の分かれるものが多い点に注意。科学系ブログでは、「神は存在するか」というポストは、「大型ハドロン衝突型加速器からの最新の結果」といったポストよりも一桁も二桁も多い閲覧数を獲得する。
  3. ドーマンはファイナンス系ブログのことを失念している。ファイナンス系ブログはミクロ的側面が強い。また、純粋な経済学ブログより閲覧数が遥かに多いが、その理由は明らかだろう。


I completely disagree with with the earlier comment that "Macro has a lot bigger ramifications for people's lives (and hence for policy) than micro" - a whole lot of policy comes down to micro but macro is just a lot more visible to non-economists. As for why macro dominates the econ blogosphere, I think part of it is that microeconomists are so much more specialized, so the conversations are harder to get going. Anyone who does anything macro (and any non-economist who pays attention to current events) seems to feel qualified to talk about "the economy" but as a public and labor economist, I would probably hesitate to comment on an environmental economics blog or an IO blog.

このドーマンのエントリはEconomist's Viewでも取り上げられているが、そちらのコメント欄ではWCIブログのFrances Woolleyが上記のイマゼキと同様のことを述べている。

Mark, at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative we have micro-bloggers like me and macro-bloggers like Nick Rowe. Wildly extrapolating from this sample of two, I'd say the big difference is that the macro-bloggers read each other's blogs and talk to each other, while micro-bloggers do their own individual thing, not paying much attention to other bloggers. After all, what is there to say about a micro-economic result other than:

  • that's kind of obvious, isn't it (most of micro economics)
  • ah, but what about endogeneity? (most of applied micro economics)
  • I always figured basic economic theory could explain every aspect of human life (Freakonomics)

マーク、WCIブログでは私のようなミクロ経済学のブロガーと、Nick Roweのようなマクロ経済学のブロガーがいる。この2つのサンプルから粗っぽい外挿をすると、両者の大きな違いは、マクロ経済学ブロガーはお互いのブログを読み、対話を行うが、ミクロ経済学ブロガーは蛸壺に入り込み、他のブロガーにあまり関心を払わない、という点にある。それに、言ってしまえば、ミクロ経済学から得られる結論について以下の3点以外に語るべきことはない:

  • これって自明のことだよね(ほとんどのミクロ経済学
  • ああ、でも内生性はどうなっているの?(ほとんどの応用ミクロ経済学
  • 基本的な経済理論で人間の生活のあらゆる側面が説明できると僕はいつも考えている(ヤバい経済学)


Anne - fair enough, I was being deliberately provocative, but for a reason.

I agree that there are many micro topics worth writing about. E.g. today in my Globe and Mail blog I was writing about raising government revenue through lotteries.

But there is a broad professional consensus on many of the basic principles of micro and how they apply to the real world. E.g. no one responded to my Globe and Mail blog saying "no, you're wrong to say lower income households spend a higher percentage of their income on lottery tickets."

So micro blogs can be very effective in getting economic ideas out there and raising overall economic literacy. But they just don't inspire the same kind of debate.

I think that's because of the nature of the content, and not just because micro bloggers are a totally self-absorbed bunch who ignore other micro-bloggers. Though I wouldn't entirely rule out the latter possibility.


My guess: It's because macro is really about money. And money is really really weird. It's valuable, but usually costless; it doesn't seem useful, but everyone wants to have it and hold some; it doesn't have a price of its own; it doesn't have a market of its own. It's a very special sort of good, that everyone is familiar with, but nobody understands. So money, and hence macro, is always fundamentally fascinating.

Sorry, micro people ;-)


Nick, we've talked in the past about the fact that macro people like you can understand micro, but micro people like me can't understand macro.

You have to talk about macro on the blogosphere because that's the only place you can find people who are able to engage you in intelligent, informed discussion.

I can talk about micro with students, colleagues, friends, family - I don't need the blogosphere in the same way.