Should the history of macroeconomics steer clear of the fray or be partisan? A critical essay on Banks and Finance in Modern Macroeconomics by B. Ingrao and C. Sardoni

Bibliographic Data

ID21458292
AuthorsMichel De Vroey (corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume78
Issue2
Pages293-306
Publication date2021-03-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueCahiers d économie politique (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0154-8344 • E-ISSN: 1969-6779
PublisherCAIRN (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3917/cep1.078.0293
OpenAlexW3175470860
LanguageEN
References cited14

My review of Ingrao and Sardoni’s book paper focuses on its Part II, entitled “From the Neoclassical Synthesis to New Keynesian Economics.” My criticisms amount to three. First, I disagree with Ingrao and Sardoni’s account of the twists and turns that have occurred in modern macroeconomics. Often, where they see continuity, I see cleavage; where they see cleavage, I see continuity. Second, I put forward that the result of the 2008 recession is that DSGE economists were led to zero in on the hitherto neglected issue of the workings of the financial sector and its integration in their models. Hence, Ingrao and Sardoni’s conclusion of failure must be revised. Third, I want to bring out that the internal history of economics can be written in two ways: the approach can be partisan or steer clear of the fray. As I am in favor of the latter, I regret that Ingrao and Sardoni have adopted the former

Economics · Keynesian economics · Macroeconomics · Economic Theory and Policy · Global Financial Crisis and Policies · Monetary Policy and Economic Impact

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access