Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to assess the current state of macroeconomics and determine whether the subject is a useful tool both in public and private planning decisions. First, I discuss briefly the history of and assess the keynesian and neoclassical macroeconomic models and their counterpart, econometrics, by examining the empirical record of forecasting and structural stability of the various models. Second, I examine the alternative methodology of the Austrian school, that uses logical deduction from assumed true axioms rather than the scientific method in deriving economic theory. My general conclusion is that mainstream Keynesian and neoclassical economic theory, combined with econometric analysis, has not provided very much, if any, useful information to either public or private planners. While the Austrian approach seems at the outset to be an attractive alternative to the mainstream economic schools of thought, it is faced with the difficulty of determining how its so-called “self evident” axioms are true. Some Austrians trace their methodology back to Aristotle, who said that self evident propositions are based on empiricism. The problem of establishing which axioms are self evident needs to be solved before Austrian economics is able to gain wide spread acceptance among the economics community.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

L.C.

Carlson

K.C.

“A Monetarist Model for Economic Stabilization,” Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis: Review, 52(11), (Nov 1970), 7–25.

Bell

Daniel

Irving

Kristol

, eds. (1981). The Crisis in Economic Theory. (New York: Basic Books, Inc).

Box

George E.

Jerkins

Gwilyn M.

(1970). Time Series Analysis, Forecasting, and Control. (San Francisco: Holden Day).

Christ

Carl

(1951). “A Test of an Econometric Model of the United States, 1921–1947”, Conference on Business Cycles. (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research).

Christ

Carl

, “Aggregate Econometric Models,” The American Economic Review, 46, (July 1956), 385–408.

Cooper

Ronald L.

(1972). “The Predictive Performance of Quarterly Econometric Models,” in Econometric Models of Cyclical Behavior, Hickman

Bert

, ed., New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Darnell

Adrian C.

Evans

J. Lynne

(1990). The Limits of Econometrics. (Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited).

Davidson

Paul

(1981). “Post Keynesian Economics: Solving the Crisis in Economic Theory,” in The Crisis in Economic Theory, eds. Bell

Daniel

Kristol

Irving

. (New York: Basic Books, Inc).

Duesenberry

James

Fromm

Gary

Klein

Lawrence R.

Kuh

Edward

(1975). The Brookings Model: Some Further Results. (Amsterdam: North Holland).

10.

Bowden

Elbert V.

Bowden

Judith H.

(1996). Economics: The Science of Common Sense (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing, 8th ed.).

11.

Friedman

Milton

(1969). The Optimum Quantity of Money and other Essays. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company).

12.

Friedman

Milton

Friedman

Rose

(1962). Captialism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

13.

Friedman

Milton

Schwartz

Anna J.

(1963). A Monetetary History of the United States 1867–1960 (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

14.

Friedman

Milton

(1997). “John Maynard Keynes,” Economic Quarterly, 83/2, (Spring), Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1–23.

15.

Frisch

Ragnar

, “From Utopian Theory to Practical Applications: the Case of Econometrics,” American Economic Review, (December 1981), 5.

16.

Fromm

Gary

Paul

Taubman

(1968). Policy Simulation with an Econometric Model. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

17.

Granger

C.W.J.

Newbold

Paul

(1977). Forecasting and Economic Time Series. (New York: Academic Press, (1953).

18.

Hansen

Alvin

, A Guide to Keynes (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).

19.

Howrey

Philip

Klein

Lawrence

McCarthy

Michael D.

(1976). “Notes on Testing the Predictive Performance of Econometric Models,” in, Econometric Performance: Comparative Simulation Studies of the U.S. Economy, Klein

Lawrence R.

Burmeister

Edwin

, eds. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

20.

Humphrey

Thomas M.

, “Non neutrality of Money in Classical Monetary Thought,” Economic Review. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond: March/April 1991, 77(2), 3–15.

21.

Jorgenson

Dale W.

Siebert

Charles D.

“A Comparison of Alternative Theories of Corporate Investment Behavior,”

American Economic Review, 58, (Sept. 1968), 681–712.

22.

Klein

Lawrence

Goldberger

(1954). An Econometric Model of the United States, 1929–1952. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company).

23.

Koopmans

Tjalling C.

“Measurement Without Theory,”

Review of Economics and Statistics, 29(3) (August 1947), 161–72.

24.

Leijonhufvud

Axel

, “Keynes, & The Keynesians: A Suggested Interpretation,” The American Economic Review, 57, (May 1967), 401–410.

25.

Lekachman

Robert

(1976). Economists at Bay. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).

26.

Malabre, Jr. (1994). Alfred, Lost Prophets. (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

27.

Mehra

Yash P.

(1997). “A Review of the Recent Behavior of M2 Demand,” Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 83(3), (Summer), 27–43.

28.

Mirowski

Philip

(1989). “Tis a Pity Econometrics isn’t an Empirical Endeavor: Mandelbrot, Chaos, and The Noah and Joseph Effects,” Ricerce Economiche, XLIII, 1–2, 79.

29.

Mirowski

Philip

(1989). More Heat Than Light (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

30.

Mitchell

Wesley C.

(1933). Business Cycles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

31.

Nelson

Charles

, “The Prediction Performance of the FRB-MIT-PENN Model of the U.S. Economy,” The American Economic Review, 62(5), (December 1972), 902–917.

32.

Samuelson

Paul

(1947). Foundations of Economic Analysis. (New York: Atheneum, 1965). Originally published by Harvard University Press.

33.

Schumpeter

Joseph A.

, “The Crisis in Economics—Fifty Years Ago,” Journal of Economic Literature, XX, (September 1982), 1049–1059.

34.

Von Mises

Ludwig

(1985). Theory and History (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute).

The Current State of Macroeconomics: Is It Time for a New Approach?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References