Complementing previous, often ignored criticism of the AD-AS model - to the effect that this widely-used construction is inherently inconsistent - this note argues that a (rare) defence of the model by Peter Kennedy fails to convince and that the model does indeed, as alleged, give rise to confusing and misleading expositions of the working of the macroeconomy.
Grieve, R.H.1998. Two into one won’t go. In Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modelling, ed. B. B. Rao, 83-94.
6.
Kennedy, P.1998. Defending ADAS: A perspective on the ADAS controversy . In Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modelling, ed. B. B. Rao, 95-106.
7.
Mankiw, N.G.2000. Macroeconomics, 4th ed. New York: Worth.
8.
Moseley, F.2010. Criticisms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply and Mankiw’s presentation. ASSA/AEA paper, January.
9.
Nevile, J.W., and B.B. Rao.1996. The use and abuse of aggregate demand and supply functions. The Manchester School64: 189-207.
10.
Pigou, A.C.1933. The theory of unemployment. London : Frank Cass.
11.
Rao, B.B.1991. What is the matter with aggregate demand and supply? In Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modelling , ed. B. B. Rao, 45-56.
12.
Rao, B. B, ed. 1998. Aggregate demand and supply: A critique of orthodox macroeconomic modelling. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
