前回エントリで紹介したクルーグマンのルーカス評にIvan Werningが異を唱えている

I disagree but think there are two separate issues. Was his particular 1972 islands model emphasizing incomplete information the right model? Most people today do not think so---although a few still work on information frictions; and "inattention" a la Sims is a close cousin.
So I would agree if we interpret Lucas contribution as that paper and model. But there was much more to it at a methodological level. A few examples.
The Lucas critique directly follows from thinking hard and more broadly from this micro perspective.
That critique might also have been applied too harshly or selectively at the time, Keynesian vs non Keynesian.
But broadly interpreted, it was hugely illuminating and showed the benefit of small yet fully coherent (GE) models, of the kind you write Paul!
Two more examples of Lucas' work showing the benefits of linking up macro with micro.
His asset pricing paper, so simple and clarifying. Clearly a step forward (much more to build, for sure). Thinking of the stock market was hard. Merton and Samuelson...
... were trying to solve "demand" (the portfolio problem) for given asset price paths, hoping to then work out an equilibrium. Lucas' paper cut through that.
Another: uniting macro and public finance, to think coherently about inflation, taxes, debt, debt maturity etc. Lucas-Stokey (built on Barro + Phelps earlier hints) leverages great advances in 70s from Public Finance (also built on GE) from greats such as Diamond and Mirrlees.
I could go on. But this suffices to illustrate the general point.
In my view the work on nominal rigidities developed in 70s-80s by Phelps-Taylor-Fisher-Dornbusch-Rotemberg-Blanchard (+ many more) benefited by Lucas' approach and influence.
This can be viewed as the opposite side in the sense of making a Keynesian comeback of sorts, but I think they benefited from Lucas' micro perspective. I wonder if you agree with this.
I thinK Olivier's tweet synthesizes this perfectly.
Finally, too curious not to ask. Hope you don't mind!
Do you think your celebrated BOP 1979 paper owes no intellectual debt to Lucas' approach to macro? (say, intermediated through Dornbusch and Fisher)
私は同意しないが、これには2つの別々の問題があるように思う。不完全情報を強調した彼の1972年の島モデルについて言えば、それは正しいモデルだったのか? 今日、多くの人はそう思っていない――ただ、情報摩擦について今も研究している人は幾らかいる。また、シムズ流の「無関心」は、それと近い話である*1

貴兄の著名な1979年の国際収支の論文*6は、ルーカスのマクロの手法に知的に何ら負うことが無いとお思いですか? (例えば、ドーンブッシュやフィッシャーを介してでも)


*2:ここでWerningはMatteo Maggioriスタンフォード大教授のツイートにリンクしているが、同ツイートでは、ルーカスがMITの就職面接でこの論文の基となる課題を与えられたエピソードを紹介している。当該の論文はこちら

*3:cf. 「Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy in an Economy without Capital」。

*4:cf. 「Optimal Taxation and Public Production I: Production Efficiency」。

*5:cf. ブランシャールの追悼ツイート - himaginary’s diary

*6:cf. おそらく「A Model of Balance-of-Payments Crises」。