This book examines new classical macroeconomics from a comparative and critical point of view that confronts the original texts and later comments as a first dimension of comparison. The second dimension appears in a historical context, since none of the new classical doctrines can be analyzed ignoring the parallelism and discrepancies with the theory of Keynes, Friedman or Phelps. Radicalism of new classical macroeconomics has brought fundamental changes in economic thought, but the doctrines got vulgarized and distorted thanks to the mass of followers. Nowadays, economic theory and policy, trying to find their ways, have a less clear relationship than ever. Therefore, this volume is aimed at mapping and reconsidering the policy instruments and transmission mechanisms offered by the new classicals. Its central question points to the real nature of new classical macroeconomics: what consequences are grounded by the assumptions new classicals used. Moreover, issues raised by automatic fiscal stabilizers and fiscal reforms are analyzed as well, even if they were out of the range of classical texts. The book draws a picture of new classical macroeconomics stressing the analogies with Keynesian countercyclical policies, instead of the discrepancies commonly held.

Back to the future: a heterodox economist rewrites Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money to serve as the basis for a macroeconomics for the twenty-first century. John Maynard Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was the most influential economic idea of the twentieth century. But, argues Stephen Marglin, its radical implications were obscured by Keynes's lack of the mathematical tools necessary to argue convincingly that the problem was the market itself, as distinct from myriad sources of friction around its margins. Marglin fills in the theoretical gaps, revealing the deeper meaning of the General Theory. Drawing on eight decades of discussion and debate since the General Theory was published, as well as on his own research, Marglin substantiates Keynes's intuition that there is no mechanism within a capitalist economy that ensures full employment. Even if deregulating the economy could make it more like the textbook ideal of perfect competition, this would not address the problem that Keynes identified: the potential inadequacy of aggregate demand. Ordinary citizens have paid a steep price for the distortion of Keynes's message. Fiscal policy has been relegated to emergencies like the Great Recession. Monetary policy has focused unduly on inflation. In both cases the underlying rationale is the false premise that in the long run at least the economy is self-regulating so that fiscal policy is unnecessary and inflation beyond a modest 2 percent serves no useful purpose. Fleshing out Keynes's intuition that the problem is not the warts on the body of capitalism but capitalism itself, Raising Keynes provides the foundation for a twenty-first-century macroeconomics that can both respond to crises and guide long-run policy.

This innovative text ushers in a new way of examining basic economic issues. It teaches economics from a different standpoint, based on specialization and the division of labor. Resource allocation for a given level of division of labor is shown as not the only determination for demand and supply. Levels of division of labor are shown as a major factors as well.

This book retraces the history of macroeconomics from Keynes's General Theory to the present. Central to it is the contrast between a Keynesian era and a Lucasian - or dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) - era, each ruled by distinct methodological standards. In the Keynesian era, the book studies the following theories: Keynesian macroeconomics, monetarism, disequilibrium macro (Patinkin, Leijongufvud, and Clower) non-Walrasian equilibrium models, and first-generation new Keynesian models. Three stages are identified in the DSGE era: new classical macro (Lucas), RBC modelling, and second-generation new Keynesian modeling. The book also examines a few selected works aimed at presenting alternatives to Lucasian macro. While not eschewing analytical content, Michel De Vroey focuses on substantive assessments, and the models studied are presented in a pedagogical and vivid yet critical way.

In the early 1980s, rational expectations and new classical economics dominated macroeconomic theory. This essay evolved from theauthors' profound disagreement with that trend. It demonstrates notonly how the new classical view got macroeconomics wrong, but also howto go about doing macroeconomics the right way.

This book is an investigation of the methodological and epistemological foundations of macroeconomic theory, based on an examination of the theories of Keynes and Lucas. It is divided into two parts. In the first Professor Vercelli discusses the methodological issues which lie behind the conflict among different schools of thought in macroeconomics (equilibrium and disequilibrium, risk and uncertainty, rationality and causality). These issues are central to the current debate not only in many branches of economics, but also in other scientific disciplines. The traditional point of view of science based on equilibrium, stability and determinism has been increasingly challenged by a new point of view in which disequilibrium, instability and uncertainty play a crucial role. This, the author argues, is bound to put macroeconomics in a new, more promising position. In the second part of the book the author compares the two main alternative research programmes in macroeconomics: that outlined by Keynes in his 'General Theory', and that suggested by Lucas, the leader of the new classical economists.