「Is something really wrong with macroeconomics?」というエッセイをLSEのリカルド・ライス(Ricardo Reis)が書き、マンキューが「示唆に富んでいる(thought-provoking)」と評している

I will discuss four uses of macroeconomics, from those that are, in my view, less wrong, to those that perhaps need more change: research, policy, forecasting, and teaching.


Blanchard (2016), Korinek (2015) and Wren-Lewis (2017) worry that the current standards and editorial criteria in macroeconomics undermine promising ideas, deter needed diversity in the topics covered, and impose mindless work on DSGEs that brings little useful knowledge to policy discussions. Smith (2016) emphasizes that we have far less data than what we would need to adequately test our models, and Romer (2016) that identification is the perennial challenge for social sciences. Smith (2014) and Coyle and Haldane (2014) characterize the state of economics, not as the perennial glass half full and half empty, but rather as two glasses, one full and the other empty. In their view, applied empirical economists have been celebrating their successes, while macroeconomists lament their losses.

その上で、「こうした批判すべてに幾ばくかの真実が含まれているが、それはある程度までに過ぎない(All of these criticisms contain some truth, but only up to a point)」と切って捨てている。


I have argued that while there is much that is wrong with macroeconomics today, most critiques of the state of macroeconomics are off target. Current macroeconomic research is not mindless DSGE modeling filled with ridiculous assumptions and oblivious of data. Rather, young macroeconomists are doing vibrant, varied, and exciting work, getting jobs, and being published. Macroeconomics informs economic policy only moderately and not more nor all that differently than other fields in economics. Monetary policy has benefitted significantly from this advice in keeping inflation under control and preventing a new Great Depression. Macroeconomic forecasts perform poorly in absolute terms and given the size of the challenge probably always will. But relative to the level of aggregation, the time horizon, and the amount of funding, they are not so obviously worst than those in other fields. What is most wrong with macroeconomics today is perhaps that there is too little discussion of which models to teach and too little investment in graduate-level textbooks.


*1:cf. ここ


*3:cf. 関連エントリの紹介


*5:cf. ここ

*6:cf. ここ