Ulrich Fritsche http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/626/the_case_against_stabilization_policy_--_why_is_the_discussion_in_the_us_often_so_different_from_europe
The case for (and against certain types of) stabilization policy is a highly disputed issue. This is at least the case in the U.S. but applies to a certain fraction of European economists -- this blog is a nice example. If you need another example, just have a look a the new manifesto published by the "old" Keynesian (in the terminology of an JEP's article by James Tobin on differences between "new" and "old" Keynesians, in terms of freshness of his ideas Solow seems to be as young as he ever was) Robert Solow and some European fellows, see the link here. Even under my qualifications however, it is justified to claim that the debate is much more alive in the U.S. -- not among the mainstream of European economist.
I would like to discuss three points in a provocative manner:
Are there any principles and guidelines on which macroeconomists can agree on and how and why does the discussion in Europe differ from other places in the world, e.g. North America?
Are the differences minor -- some might say purely semantic -- or does a fundamental disagreement exist which might be due to a different historical background?
Does the understanding of what might be an appropriate policy change with a new generation of macroeconomists starting professional careers at universities, think tanks and central banks?
more - http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor/626/the_case_against_stabilization_policy_--_why_is_the_discussion_in_the_us_often_so_different_from_europe
No comments:
Post a Comment