Suchergebnisse

Two defining moments in the history of econometrics and in that of the Econometric Society are discussed in this essay. The first is the founding of the society and the initial skirmishes over the criteria for selecting its fellows, who were to represent the best practices of econometrics. The second was, twenty years later, the discussion about the nature of the mathematics adequate for the progress of econometrics. In both cases, some dissident views were presented, but whereas in the first period a pluralistic approach dominated, by the time of the second debate a more coherent and cohesive view was prevalent in econometric circles, to the discomfort of some of its founders.

Robert Solow's "Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function" (1957) has had an enduring influence on macroeconomics. In this article, we examine the history of fluctuations in growth theory through the story of the "Solow residual" as a "black box." We show that after Solow's seminal contribution, the "residual" became a reproducible object. Losing its ties with the intentions and beliefs of its originator, it was given new and unexpected uses in other branches of macroeconomics. While the residual had always remained a problematic result in growth accounting, its borrowing by real business cycle theorists sought to establish it as a definitive representation of technology. As the claims of the New Classicals came under scrutiny, so did the status and meaning of the object residual. The integration of growth and cycle has since been shaped by the opening of this "black box." Edward Prescott has remained committed to his earlier interpretation of the "Solow residual" as stochastic technology. Others have sought to bracket multiple supply shocks as the residual, abandoning attempts to decompose it. To the New Keynesians the "residual" has been more evidence of market power and the need to integrate rigidities in the study of the cycle.

The article explores the discussions among economic modelers and central banks research staff and decision makers, namely on the adequacy of unconventional monetary policy and fiscal expansionary measures after the subprime crisis and as the COVID recession is developing. First, the article investigates the arguments, models and policy proposals of several mainstream schools of economics that challenged the traditional Chicagoan orthodoxy based on Milton Friedman's views, and developed the Lucas Critique, the New Classical synthesis and Real Business Cycle approach that replaced monetarism as the main rivals to old-time Keynesianism. Second, the transformation of Real Business Cycle models into Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models is mapped, as it extended the ideas of the iniquity of government intervention and unified academic and central bank research. Yet, a battery of criticism was levied against the DSGE models and, as the debate emerged over quantitative easing and other tools of unconventional monetary policy, the need for policy pragmatism shattered the previous consensus. The article then proceeds to discuss how the leading mainstream academic economists reacted to changes in central banks' practices, noticing a visible dissonance within Chicago-school and DSGE economists, as well as major contortions of central bankers in order to justify their new postures. The article concludes with a call for an extensive menu of fiscal, industrial and innovation policies in order to respond to recessions and structural crises ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion